■< 


^\mmy  wmims 


U  ^H.OfCAllF0%  v\FllNIVFRv 


V'"m 


<<>  ft  ^ 


/digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 
' '      in  2008  with  funding  from 

IVlicrosoft  Corporation         ,,^,,^^ 


g  ^'     - 


'<r 


§       o 


■fitr^       ^of  CAiifOftj^ 


.^  Oc 


.^  ^ 


^.iiBP,ApYMp://www.archive.org/details/englishpoliticsiOObrow 


-^  ^ 


'XilJONVM 


^ii/Odnv. 


ofr.Mrno,,  -^ur  iiMVFPr/ 


lUNIVERS-//. 


.  r  I  in n  ■  n \y  ^, 


'^  r.' 


aifjranlcr  -firotun 


ENGLISH  POLITICS  IN  EARLY  VIRGINIA  HIS- 
TORY.    Crown  8vo,  52.00. 

THE  FIRST  REPUBLIC  IN  AMERICA.  With  a 
Portrait  of  Sir  Edwin  Sandys.     8vo,  J7.50,  tut. 

THE  GENESIS  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES.  A 
Narrative  of  the  Movement  in  England,  1605-1616, 
which  resulted  in  the  Plantation  of  North  America 
by  Englishmen,  disclosing  the  Contest  between 
England  and  Spain  for  the  Possession  of  the  Soil 
now  occupied  by  the  United  States  of  America. 
With  Notes,  Maps,  Plans,  100  Portraits,  and  Com- 
prehensive Biographical  Index.  2  vols.  8vo,  $15.00, 
rut ;  half  morocco,  520.00,  net. 

THE  CABELLS  AND  THEIR  KIN.  A  Memorial 
Volume  of  History,  Biography,  and  Genealogy. 
With  33  Portraits  and  other  Illustrations.  8vo, 
J7.50,  mt. 

HOUGHTON,  MIFFLIN  &   CO. 
Boston  and  New  York. 


ENGLISH  POLITICS  IN 

EARLY  VIRGINIA 

HISTORY 


BY 


ALEXANDER  BROWN,  D.C.L. 

Author  0/  "  The  Genesis  of  the  United  States  " 

"  TAg  Cabells  and  their  £■*»"  and 

**  The  First  Republic  in  America''^ 


BOSTON  AND  NEW  YORK 
HOUGHTON,  MIFFLIN  AND  COxMPANY 

MDCCCCI 


O  r<^  -J  1. 


3 


COPYRIGHT,    I90I,    BY   ALEXANDER    BROWN 
ALL    RIGHTS    RESERVED 


(66 


DEDICATION 

This  hooh  is  most  respectfully  inscribed  to  those 
citizens  of  the  Republic  who  wish  to  render  historic 
justice  to  the  Patriots  who  instituted  the  popular 
course  of  government  in  this  country. 

ALEXANDER   BROWN. 
Norwood  P.  0., 
Nelson  County,  Virginia. 


CONTENTS 


PART  I 

An  outline  of  the  primary  effort  of  the  Patriot  party  in 
England  to  plant  a  popular  course  of  government  in 
America,  and  of  the  Court  party  to  prevent  it ;  showing 
that  a  great  historic  wrong  was  done  our  patriotic  found- 
ers by  James  I.  and  his  officials  in  the  evidences  pre- 
served by  and  licensed  by  the  crown,  and  why  it  was  done       1 

I.    Introduction 3 

II.   Obtaining  the  first  (1G09)  charter 6 

III.  Inaugurating  the  movement       .   • 13 

IV.  Obtaining  the  second  (1612)-  charter,  etc 21 

V.   Inaugurating  the  government 26 

VI.  The  controversy  becomes  a  contest 30 

VII.  The  first  appeal  to  Parliament 35 

VIII.  The  continued  contest 42 

u       IX.  The  second  appeal  to  Parliament 49 

S         X.  The  charters  annulled 52 

""*  PART  II 

0)  An  outline  of  the  effort  of  the  Court  party  in  England  to 
r^  obliterate  the  true  history  of  the  origin  of  this  nation  ; 
^  showing  how  a  great  historic  wrong  was  done  our  patri- 
pC4       otic   founders   by  James   I.,  his   commissioned  officials, 

and  licensed  historians 57 

I.    The  crown  confiscates  the  evidences 59 

II.   The  effort  to  preserve  the  evidences 69 

III.   The  history  licensed  by  the  crown 73 

PART  III 

An  outline  of  the  contest  over  our  political  and  historic 
rights  between  the  Court  and  Patriot  parties,  from  1625 
until  the  Patriots  determined  to  secure  their  political 
rights  by  force  of  arms  in  1776  ;  showing  the  ways  by 
which  the  original  historic  wrong  was  supported  and  per- 
petuated under  the  crown         87 


vi  CONTENTS 

I.  Under  Charles  I.,  1625-1641 89 

II.  Civil  war,  1G41-1&40 104 

III.  Parliament,  etc.,  1646-1G60 107 

IV.  Of  the  control  over  histories 108 

V.  Notes  from  IGGO  to  174G 116 

VI.  Stith's  History  of  Virginia 124 

VII.  The  records  of  1G19-1G24 133 

VIII.  Under  George  III.,  1760-1776 140 

IX.  Of  boundary  rights 147 

PART  IV 

An  outline  of  what  has  been  done  both  towards  perpetu- 
ating and  towards  correcting  the  historic  wrong  since  the 
loyal  political  point  of  view  was  reversed  in  1776  .     .     .  151 

I.  Thomas  Jefferson  as  a  laborer  in  the  field  of  original 
research 153 

II.  Jefferson's  "  Notes  on  Virginia  " 158 

III.  History  under  tlie  influence  of  past  politics,  1784-1861  164 

IV.  Past  history  under  the  influence  of  present  politics      .  170 

V.  An  explanation  of  my  work  in  this  field,  1876-1900    .  178 

PART  V 

A  review  of  some  of  the  leading  political  features  in  the 
case  between  the  Patriot  party,  which  managed  the  busi- 
ness and  laid  the  foundation  upon  which  this  great  nation 
has  been  erected,  and  the  Court  party,  which  controlled 
the  evidences  and  laid  the  foundation  upon  which  the 
history  of  this  great  movement  has  been  written  .  .  .  191 
I.    Of  the  movement 193 

II.  Of  the  charters 204 

III.  Of  the  corporation 216 

IV.  Of  the  forms  of  government 228 

V.  Of  the  managers,  etc 236 

VI.  Of  the  motive,  —  vis  vitce 245 

VII.  Conclusion 249 

INDEX 263 


PART  I 

An  outline  of  the  primary  effort  of  the  Patriot  party  in 
England  to  plant  a  popular  course  of  government  in  Amer- 
ica, and  of  the  Court  party  to  prevent  it ;  showing  that  a 
great  historic  wrong  was  done  our  patriotic  founders  by 
James  I.  and  his  officials  in  the  evidences  preserved  by  and 
licensed  by  the  crown,  and  why  it  was  done. 


CHAPTER  I 

INTRODUCTORY 

The  case  of  our  patriotic  founders,  because  of 
the  results  which  have  naturally  followed  the 
complete  control  over  evidences  held  by  their 
opponents,  has  been  misrepresented  for  over  two 
hundred  and  fifty  years,  and  has  come  to  be  so 
entirely  misunderstood  that  it  cannot  be  corrected 
suddenly. 

All  issues  naturally  produce  opposing  evi- 
dences, and  tend  to  obscure  facts ;  but  of  all 
influences,  not  one  has  had  a  more  absolute  effect 
under  monarchies  in  the  past,  on  the  history  of 
reform  movements,  than  politics.  Policies  of  g-ov- 
ernment  were  even  more  vigorously  censored 
than  matters  pertaining  to  religion.  The  abso- 
lute authority  possessed  by  the  opponents  of 
such  movements  enabled  them  to  obliterate  the 
truth  of  the  history  as  performed  from  the  pages 
of  the  history  as  published  to  such  an  extent  that 
contemporary  "  histories "  of  such  movements 
have  frequently  really  reversed  the  true  view  of 
history ;  given  the  honors  to  those  to  whom  they 
were   not   due;    censured   those   who    deserved 


4  INTRODUCTORY 

praise,  and  conveyed  ideas  of  the  whole  move- 
ment which  were  agreeable  to  those  who  opposed 
its  reform  features,  but  were  unfair  to  the  re- 
formers promoting  those  features. 

AVhile  the  laborer  in  the  field  of  original  re- 
search in  pursuit  of  the  truth  must  find  it  very 
difficult  to  discover  sufficient  impartial  and  au- 
thentic evidence  on  which  to  base  the  true  his- 
tory of  any  movement  which  fell  under  the  ban 
of  those  who  opposed  the  movement  and  con- 
trolled the  evidences,  it  is  not  necessary  for  him 
to  labor  entirely  in  the  dark.   "  Authority  springs 
from  reason,  not  reason  from  authority  —  true 
reason  need  not  be  confirmed  by  any  authority." 
He  must  be  guided  by  the  light  of  reason.    And 
reason   shows   that  unless   the  press  is  free  a 
licensed  history  is  obliged  to  conform  to  the  pur- 
poses of  those  who  control  the  press ;  that  the 
more  inspired  by  interdicted  Hberal  ideas  a  move- 
ment was,  the  greater  was  the  necessity  for  the 
royalist  censors  opposing  those  ideas  to  obliterate 
the  historic  facts  regarding  them  permanently ; 
that  the  greater  the  difficulty  in  finding  facts  is 
in  itself  a  circumstantial  evidence  of  the  especial 
imi)ortance   of  the  facts  which  have  been  con- 
cealed ;  and  that  the  positive  effort  to  suppress 
j.'uthentic  records  is  sufficient  evidence  in  itself 
against  those  making  the  effort  to  condemn  any 
**  history  "  which  was  pubHshed  under  their  aus- 


INTRODUCTORY  6 

pices,  even  if  no  counter  evidence  at  all  can  be 
found. 

The  controversy  over  the  accuracy  of  Smith's 
history  has  been  called  "the  John  Smith  con- 
troversy," because  Smith  was  regarded  as  the 
responsible  author  of  the  book ;  but  the  real 
controversy,  the  real  case,  was  between  the  Pa- 
triot party,  which  determined  to  plant  a  popular 
course  of  government  in  the  New  World,  and  the 
Court  party,  which  opposed  that  purpose.  The 
object  of  this  book  is  to  explain  this  case  and 
the  results  of  this  controversy ;  to  show  that  the 
political  principles  involved  in  the  contest  be- 
tween the  two  parties  were  of  vast  importance  to 
us,  and  to  give  due  consideration  to  the  influence 
of  politics  on  our  earliest  history. 

I  will  first  give  an  outline  of  the  political 
importance  of  the  primal  movement  ^  under  which 
a  popular  course  of  government  was  inaugurated 
in  our  country ;  showing  that  an  historic  wrong 
was  done  our  patriotic  founders  by  James  I.,  his 
commissioned  officials,  and  licensed  historians  — 
both  in  the  evidences  of  the  Court  party  pre- 
served by  the  crown  and  in  the  histories  licensed 
under  the  crown.  And  this  outline  will  also 
show  why  this  wrong  was  committed. 

^  I  will  explain  more  fully  the  leading  political  features  of  the 
movement  in  Part  V. 


OBTAINING  THE  FIRST  CHARTER 


CHAPTER  II 

OBTAINING     THE     CHABTER    FOR     THE     ORIGINAL 
BODY   POLITIC,  1609 

It  is  necessary  to  note  the  royal  charter  signed 
by  James  I.  in  April,  1608,  and  to  outline  the 
enterprise  as  conducted  thereunder ;  but  it  must 
also  be  noted  that  this  enterprise  was  not  of  a 
popular  pohtical  character- — the  poHtical  fea- 
tures were  under  the  control  of  the  crown.  In 
this  charter  James  I.  claimed  all  of  America 
between  34°  and  45°  north  latitude,  which  was 
then  called  Virginia,  for  the  crown,  and  granted 
limited  plantations  under  certain  conditions  to 
two  companies.  To  the  company  for  the  first 
colony  was  given  the  privilege  of  making  a  plan- 
tation between  34°  and  41°  north  latitude,  the 
bounds  of  which,  however,  were  confined  to  the 
limits  within  one  hundred  miles  of  the  seacoast, 
and  within  fifty  miles  each  way  northward  and 
southward  of  the  "seating  place,"  after  that 
place  was  settled  upon.  The  companies  had  the 
privilege  of  sending  over  some  of  the  king's  sub- 
jects to  secure  these  areas  of  land ;  but  the  king 
reserved  to  himself  the  right  to  furnish  the  form 
of  government  for  the  companies  in  England  and 
plantations  in  America,  and  also  to  appoint  the 


OBTAINING  THE  FIRST  CHARTER  7 

officials  to  execute  the  same,  both  in  America 
and  in  England :  the  plantations  and  companies 
being  really  directly  under  the  political  control 
of  the  crown,  while  the  members  of  the  com- 
panies paid  the  expenses,  stimulated  by  the  hope 
of  finding  gold  mines,  or  a  passage  to  the  South 
Sea,  or  some  present  profit. 

Under  the  form  of  government  furnished  by 
James  I.  for  the  plantations,  the  members  of  his 
council  in  America  had  the  right  of  suffrage 
among  themselves ;  but  they  were  representatives 
of  an  absolute  king.  The  planters  had  no  con- 
trol over  them,  and  little  or  no  part  in  the  gov- 
ernment, which  was  imperial ;  being  based  on  the 
king's  principles  of  despotism,  it  gave  the  people 
(the  body  politic)  no  political  power. 

In  December,  1606,  the  first  fleet  for  the  first, 
or  South  Virginia,  colony  sailed  under  the  char- 
ter of  April,  1606,  at  the  expense  of  the  com- 
pany, but  under  the  orders  of  the  king's  council 
for  Virginia  in  England,  with  a  sealed  box  con- 
taining commissions  for  those  appointed  to  the 
king's  council  in  Virginia,  and  with  instructions, 
etc.,  to  them  from  James  I.  himself.  The  fleet 
arrived  in  Virginia  in  May  (n.  s.),  1607,  when 
the  box  was  opened,  the  commissions  issued,  and 
the  king's  form  of  government  was  inaugurated 
in  Virginia,  and  so  continued  until  it  was  neces- 
sary to  alter  it  in  order  to  save  the  colony. 

AVhile  the  king's  form  of  government  for  the 


8  OBTAINING  THE  FIRST  CHARTER 

colonies  Tvas  in  force  in  Virginia  during  1607- 
1010/  important  foreign  and  domestic,  religious 
and  political  policies  were  developing  in  England, 
which  were  destined  to  shape  the  future  of  North 
America.  Among  these,  in  order  to  understand 
the  case,  it  is  very  important  to  consider  espe- 
cially :  — 

First.  The  controversies  with  Spain,  and,  at 
this  time,  with  especial  reference  to  the  case  of 
The  Richard  (which  had  been  captured  by  Span- 
iards while  en  route  to  North  Virginia),  then  be- 
fore Parliament,  with  Sir  Edwin  Sandys  as  "  the 
chairman  of  the  committee  on  Spanish  wrongs." 

Second.  The  religious  controversies,  f  olloA^ing 
the  Hampton  Court  Conference. 

Third,  The  political  controversies,  which  I 
propose  to  consider  in  this  book. 

In  these  political  controversies  we  will  find  on 
the  one  side  "  the  men  of  genius  and  enlarged 
minds,"  who  were  then  adopting  the  principles 
of  liberty,  forming  themselves  into  a  political 
party,  variously  called  the  Patriot,  or  Liberal,^ 
or  Independent  party,  "  advocates  of  EngUsh 
rights,"  "  opponents  of  the  secret  court  Spanish 
party,"  etc.  At  the  head  of  this  party  or  polit- 
ical element  was  Sir  Edwin  Sandys,  whom  James 
I.  came  to  regard  as  his  "  greatest  enemy,"  as  "  a 
crafty  man  with  ambitious  designs,"  etc.  Gar- 
diner says :    "At   this  time,  toleration   in   the 

'  Sec  The  First  Republic  in  America,  pp.  21-119. 


OBTAINING  THE  FIRST  CHARTER  9 

churcli  and  reform  in  the  state  were  the  noble 
objects  of  Sir  Francis  Bacon,  and  next  to  him  no 
man  enjoyed  the  confidence  of  the  Commons 
more  than  Sir  Edwin  Sandys."  He  had  aided 
Bacon  in  drawing  up,  "  with  great  force  of  rea- 
soning and  spirit  of  Hberty,"  the  celebrated  re- 
monstrance of  the  Commons  to  the  conduct  of 
James  I.  towards  his  first  Parliament.  On  the 
other  side,  we  find  the  members  of  the  Court 
party,  advocates  of  imperialism,  becoming  more 
and  more  active  in  opposing  and  in  trying  to 
suppress  the  growth  of  the  principles  of  liberty, 
and  in  disseminating  their  ideas  of  the  virtues  of 
'^  the  kingly  power,"  contending  that  it  descended 
directly  from  God.  This  party  was  under  the 
leadership  of  James  I.  himself,  who  had  already 
published  his  "  True  Law  of  Free  Monarchies," 
his  "  Basilikon  Doron,"  his  "  Premonition  to  all 
most  mighty  Monarchs,"  and  other  such  like 
imperial  dogmas,  and  had  already  sent  both  to 
North  and  to  South  Virginia  what  the  Court 
party  called  "  His  Majesties  most  prudent  and 
Princelye  form  of  government." 

In  the  midst  of  these  budding  political  con- 
troversies several  planters  —  including  Gabriel 
Archer,  who  had  already  proposed  to  have  a 
parhament  in  Virginia  —  arrived  in  England  with 
the  breath  of  "  the  free  air  "  of  America  inspir- 
ing them,  and  also  with  unfavorable  reports  of 
the  condition  of  affairs  in  Virginia,  amounting 


10  OBTAINING  THE  FIRST  CHARTER 

really  to  an  acknowledgment  that  the  enterprise 
had  failed  under  the  king's  form  of  government, 
and  that  -without  some  vital  incentive  to  proceed 
the  enterprise  must  be  abandoned.  Many  of  the 
pati-iots,  -who  were  '•  loudly  groaning  "  under  the 
same  sort  of  government  in  England,  were  already 
interested  in  the  American  movement,  and  the 
reports  of  these  planters  naturally  appealed  to 
them.  After  consultation  with  the  planters  and 
after  considering  among  themselves  the  unpro- 
mising outlook  of  their  own  political  case  in 
England,  the  inspiration  came  to  them  "  to  lay 
hold  on  Vii'ginia  as  a  providence  cast  before 
them  of  double  advantage,"  —  of  escaping  the 
tyranny  of  imperial  government,  and  of  estab- 
lishing, as  a  refuge,  a  more  free  government  in 
America.  They  determined  to  try  to  secure  from 
James  I.  a  charter  erecting  them  into  a  corpora- 
tion and  body  poHtic  ;  conveying  to  that  body  in 
perpetuity  a  definite  portion  of  the  Spanish  West 
Indies ;  granting  to  that  body  the  pri\dlege  of 
establishinof  therein  a  onovernment  of  their  own 
making  modeled  on  the  English  constitution  as 
construed  in  the  most  favorable  way  to  them. 
From  the  date  of  this  determination  the  actual 
settlement  of  North  America  by  the  English 
became  a  reform  movement  of  an  ever-increasing 
political  miportance,  and  a  factor  in  the  pohtical 
issues  then  beginning  between  the  Court  party 
(the  crown)  and  the  Patriot  party  (the  people). 


OBTAINING  THE  FIRST  CHARTER  11 

Had  the  enterprise  been  successful  under  the 
king's  government,  it  would  have  been  folly  to 
petition  James  I.  for  a  charter  to  a  body  poli- 
tic ;  but  the  plantation  had  really  faUed,  some 
of  the  company  had  abeady  given  it  up,  many 
others  were  anxious  to  give  it  up,  and  the  unpro- 
mising outlook  was  unquestionably  instrumental 
in  inducing  James  I.  himself  to  give  up  his  cher- 
ished royal  prerogatives  and  to  grant  the  far- 
reaching  privileges  petitioned  for  to  a  body 
politic  (planters  and  adventurers)  in  perpetuity. 
There  was  no  other  alternative.  North  Virginia 
had  already  failed  under  his  form  of  government ; 
and  if  he  had  attempted  to  continue  his  govern- 
ment and  refused  to  grant  the  charter  of  1609, 
it  is  evident  that  South  Virginia  would  have  been 
abandoned  by  the  EngHsh  and  the  destiny  of 
North  America  would  have  passed  into  other 
hands  and  been  shaped  to  other  ends. 

The  petition  for  the  charter  to  a  body  politic 
was  drafted  in  the  winter  of  1608-1609  by  Sir 
Edwin  Sandys,  and  the  charter  itself  was  pre- 
pared for  the  king's  signature  by  Sir  Francis 
Bacon  and  Sir  Henry  Hobart.  This  charter  (and 
the  subsequent  charter  of  1612)  was  so  drafted 
by  Sandys  that  many  of  the  prerogatives  for- 
merly reserved  by  James  I.  in  his  charter  of 
1606  were  granted  to,  or  would  finally  pass  to, 
this  body  politic,  together  with  the  authority  to 
institute  other  enlarc^ed  and  Hberalized  rig-hts  in 


12  OBTAINING  THE  FIRST  CHARTER 

perpetuity;  the  corporation  forming  virtually  a 
primitive  state  in  its  political  capacity,  which  was 
really  designed  to  be  the  generator  of  the  people 
whom  it  was  proposed  should  become  in  the 
course  of  time  the  proprietors  of  the  boundary 
granted  between  34°  and  40°  north  latitude,  ex- 
tendins:  from  ocean  to  ocean,  and  who  should  re- 
ceive  the  benefits  accruing  under  these  charter 
rights  as  fully  as  they  now  do. 

It  must  be  noted,  especially,  that  James  I. 
did  not  actually  possess  a  foot  of  land  in  the 
large  territory  granted,  and  that  he  did  not 
bind  the  crown  to  procure  the  land  for  the 
body  poHtic.  The  great  American  wilderness  in 
which  the  patriots  proposed  "  to  erect  a  free 
popular  state,"  —  the  first  republic  in  America, 
—  whose  inhabitants  were  to  have  "  no  govern- 
ment putt  upon  them  but  by  their  own  con- 
sente,"  —  was  thousands  of  miles  away  across 
the  vast  ocean,  inhabited  by  wild  Indians,  and 
claimed  by  the  crown  of  Spain.  The  body  poli- 
tic had  to  acquire  the  land  from  these  owners 
and  claimants  by  purchase,  by  diplomacy,  or  by 
force,  and  to  settle  it  —  all  "  at  the  expense  of 
their  own  blood  and  treasure,  unassisted  by  the 
crown  of  Great  Britain."  And,  of  course,  this 
had  to  be  done  before  the  proposed  political  pur- 
poses could  be  properly  inaugurated  therein. 
The  acquiring  and  settlement  of  the  lands 
granted  could  only  be  attained  with  sufficient 


INAUGURATING   THE   MOVEMENT  13 

pain,  peril,  and  expense  justly  to  entitle  the 
body  politic  to  the  liberal  charter  rights  granted 
by  the  crown  in  perpetuity.  And  it  was  for  the 
sake  of  these  rights,  undaunted  by  the  terrors  of 
the  Atlantic,  by  the  power  of  Spain,  by  the 
climate  and  savages  of  Virginia,  —  in  the  face 
of  every  difficulty,  disaster,  and  political  opposi- 
tion,—  that  the  true  foundation  of  this  nation 
was  laid.  "  Give  me  Liberty  or  give  me  death  !  '* 
was  the  inspii*ation  of  our  foundation  as  well  as 
the  battle-cry  of  our  Revolution. 

CHAPTER  III 

INAUGURATING    THE    REFORM    MOVEMENT 

The  first  charter  to  our  original  body  politic 
was  finally  signed  by  James  I.  on  June  2,  1609.^ 
It  inspired  the  enterprise  with  a  new  life.  The 
manaofers  of  the  business  at  once  shouldered  their 
responsibilities  and  undertook  their  task  most 
earnestly.  Of  course  they  did  not  set  forth  pub- 
licly the  political  policies  which  were  inspiring 
them ;  but  at  one  of  the  meetings  of  the  well- 
affected  promoters  of  the  enterprise  (after  the 
petition  was  sent  in,  but  before  the  charter  was 
signed)  Robert  Johnson  delivered  a  discourse 
touching    their    intended    project,    which    was 

^  For  the  reasons  given  in  The  First  Republic  in  America,  pre- 
face, pp.  xxiii,  xxiv,  I  shall  use  the  present  style  dates. 


14  INAUGURATING  THE  MOVEMENT 

printed  in  February,  1609,  under  the  title  of 
Nova  Britannia,  which  gives  an  outhne  of 
their  business  purposes,  and,  with  the  present 
understanding  of  the  ease,  throws  some  hght  on 
their  pohtieal  purposes  also. 

It  is  important  to  note  that  Sir  Thomas  Smythe 

was  constituted  the  first  treasurer  of  the  corpo- 
ration ;  because,  having  been  imprisoned  for  the 
part  taken  by  him  in  the  rising  of  the  Earl  of 
Essex  in  the  time  of  Elizabeth,  he  was  then 
regarded  as  "  a  ^/oofZ  ^«^no^."  This  event  was 
an  incident  in  the  rising  of  the  popular  sjiirit, 
that  had  become  more  pronounced  in  England 
when  the  patriotic  men  of  genius  turned  their 
eyes  upon  America  "  as  a  providence  cast  before 
them  "  for  setting  on  foot  their  reform  ideas  in 
the  New  World ;  but  those  who  controlled  the 
evidences  were  against  Essex,  and  therefore  the 
truth  regarding  the  incident  may  never  be  known. 
It  is  known,  however,  that  many  of  the  old 
friends  of  Essex  became  actively  interested  in  the 
American  movement. 

It  has  been  well  said  that  "  when  the  found- 
ers of  the  colonies  came  over,  it  was  a  time  of 
general  tyranny  both  in  church  and  state  through- 
out their  mother  island,"  and  church  and  state 
were  so  closely  allied  that  it  is  somewhat  hard 
to  treat  of  religion  and  politics  separately ;  so 
although  I  am  not  dealing  with  the  religious 
questions,  it  is  important  to  call  attention  to  the 


INAUGURATING  THE  MOVEMENT  15 

following  facts,  as  they  throw  needed  light  on  the 
politics  or  policy  of  this  movement.  February 
27,  1609,  soon  after  James  I.  had  replied  favor- 
ably to  the  petition  for  the  new  charter,  letters 
were  written  to  the  Plymouth  people  to  become 
members  of  the  body  politic  before  the  charter 
was  signed,  and  many  of  them  did  so.  On  June 
9th,  only  seven  days  after  the  charter  was  signed 
by  the  king,  the  Earl  of  Southampton,  the 
Earl  of  Pembroke,  Robert  Sidney  Lord  Lisle, 
Thomas  West  Lord  De  la  Warr,  Sir  Thomas 
Smythe,  Sir  Robert  Mansfield,  Sir  Thomas  Gates 
(all  old  friends  of  Sidney  and  Essex),  and  others 
sent  a  diplomatically  worded  invitation  to  "  His 
Majesties  subjects  in  the  Free  States  of  the 
United  Provinces  "  (the  Pilgrims  ?)  offering  them 
in  an  English  colony  in  America  the  place  of 
refuge  which  they  were  seeking  in  the  Nether- 
lands. Stith,  in  his  history  of  Virginia  (p.  76), 
says :  *  Many  Puritans  took  the  resolution  of 
settling  themselves  in  Virginia  ;  but  Archbishop 
Bancroft,  finding  that  they  were  preparing  in 
great  numbers  to  depart,  obtained  a  proclama- 
tion from  the  king  forbidding  any  to  go  without 
his  Majesty's  express  leave.' 

Many  in  England,  however,  had  been  prompt 
to  avail  themselves  of  the  new  charter  rio;hts, 
and  had  already  embarked  for  Virginia  in  the 
first  expedition.  And  pilgrims  of  all  lands,  of 
all  creeds,  and  of  all  politics,  have  found  refuge 


16  INAUGURATING  THE  MOVEMENT 

under  those  charter  rights  in  the  "  sweet  land  of 
hberty,"  the  "  land  of  the  pilgrims'  pride,"  from 
that  day  to  this. 

The  first  fleet  sent  out  under  this  charter 
sailed  from  Plymouth,  England,  on  June  12, 
1609.  On  the  way  the  celebrated  tempest,  with 
*  the  roaring  waves  which  cared  not  for  the 
name  of  king,'  was  encountered,  and  "the 
king's  ship"  was  wrecked,  but  the  American 
talisman  —  our  first  constitution  containing  the 
germ  of  our  popular  course  of  government  — 
was  on  board  and  "  not  a  hair  perished."  It  is 
interesting  to  note  that  in  Shakespeare's  Tem- 
pest, the  leading  spirit  —  Ariel  —  protecting  the 
fleet  is  doino;  so  to  secure  freedom.  As  the 
Earl  of  Southampton  was  so  actively  engaged  in 
this  enterprise,  it  may  be  supposed  that  Shake- 
speare himself,  although  not  a  member  of  the 
corporation,  was  a  patriot,  and  took  an  active 
interest  in  the  enterprise  of  his  old  patron. 

Sir  Thomas  Gates  and  Sir  George  Somers 
sailed  from  "  the  still-vex'd  Bermoothes  "  on  their 
new-built  barks,  The  Dehverance  and  The  Pa- 
tience, on  "  calm  seas,"  and  with  "  auspicious 
gales"  arrived  in  Virginia  and  cast  anchor  be- 
fore Jamestown  on  the  first  anniversary  of  the 
signing  of  the  first  charter  to  the  original  of  the 
body  politic  of  this  nation,  June  2  (n.  s.),  1610. 
On  landing.  Governor  Sir  Thomas  Gates  found 
the  colony  in  a  most  deplorable  condition.    Tak- 


INAUGURATING  THE  MOVEMENT  17 

ing'  with  him  the  official  copy  of  the  new  charter 
and  his  own  commission  thereunder,  he  went  into 
the  church ;  caused  the  bell  to  be  rung ;  gath- 
ered the  old  and  the  new  planters  together; 
heard  a  zealous  and  sorrowful  prayer  by  the  Rev. 
Richard  Buck,  and  after  service  caused  William 
Strachey,  the  secretary,  to  read  his  commission  as 
governor ;  Captain  George  Percy  (the  president 
of  the  king's  council  under  the  king's  form  of 
government)  then  delivered  up  to  Governor  Gates 
the  old  royal  commissions,  the  official  copy  of  the 
royal  charter  of  April,  1606,  and  the  seal  of  the 
king's  council  in  Virginia.  The  imperial  form  of 
government  designed  for  the  colonies  by  James  I. 
ended ;  the  new  charter  rights  went  into  effect ; 
the  political  management  of  the  colony  passed  in 
a  measure  from  the  crown  to  the  "  body  politic," 
and  the  first  step  was  taken  on  American  soil  in 
the  movement  inaugurated  by  the  men  of  genius 
and  enlarged  minds  who  were  then  adopting  the 
principles  of  liberty  against  monarchy,  and  in 
favor  of  a  reform  government  in  the  New  World. 
This  was  one  of  the  most  important  political 
events  in  our  history,  and  the  scene  in  the  church 
at  Jamestown  must  have  been  most  impressive. 
There  were  present  about  sixty  old  planters,  in- 
cluding Captains  George  Percy,.  John  Martin, 
Nathaniel  Powell,  Daniel  Tucker,  Thomas  Graves, 
and  others  who  had  been  councilors  or  officials 
under  the  king's  government.     About  one  bun- 


18  INAUGURATING  THE  MOVEMENT 

dred  and  thirty-five  new  planters,  including  the 
Rev.  Mr.  Buck,  the  minister ;  Sir  Thomas  Gates, 
the  governor ;  Sir  George  Somers,  admiral ;  Cap- 
tain Christopher  Newport,  vice-admiral,  with 
some  of  his  sailors ;  Stephen  Hopkins  (afterwards 
one  of  the  Pilgrim  fathers),  with  other  noncon- 
formists ;  William  Strachej,  Ralph  Hamor,  Wil- 
liam Pierce,  John  Rolfe,  and  other  leading  men ; 
]\Irs.  John  Rolfe,  with  other  women  and  several 
children ;  probably  some  friendly  or  spying  In- 
dians ;  and  the  guard  over  the  proceedings  was 
"  Sir  Thomas  Gates  his  company  of  old  soldiers 
trained  up  in  the  Netherlands,"  under  the  com- 
mand of  Captain  George  Yeardley. 

As  the  Rev.  Mr.  Buck  had  brought  over, "  for 
the  benefit  and  use  of  the  colony,"  printed  copies 
of  the  first  sermon  preached  before  the  body 
pohtic,  it  may  be  naturally  inferred  that  he  read 
in  his  services  during  this  historic  ceremony  at 
least  i\\%  pro2:)hetic  text  of  this  sermon  :  — 

"  For  the  Lord  had  said  unto  Ahram,  Get 
thee  out  of  thy  country,  and  from  thy  kindred, 
and  from  thy  father's  house,  unto  the  land  that 
I  will  shew  thee. 

"  And  I  will  make  of  thee  a  great  nation, 
and  icill  hless  thee,  and  make  thy  name  great, 
and  thou  shall  he  a  blessing. 

"  /  icill  hless  them  also  that  hless  thee,  and 
curse  them  that  curse  thee,  and  in  thee  shall  all 
the  families  of  the  earth  he  blessed."^ 

'  The  Genesis  of  the  United  States,  pp.  283,  287. 


INAUGURATING  THE  MOVEMENT  19 

Sir  Thomas  Gates,  who  had  been  chosen  as  the 
first  governor  of  Virginia  under  the  corporation, 
and  other  members  of  his  mihtary  company,  may 
have  served  in  the  Netherlands  under  WiUiam 
the  Silent,  the  great  leader  of  the  advocates  of 
the  rights  of  man ;  and  all  of  the  company  had 
quite  certainly  served  under  his  son,  Maurice  of 
Nassau,  who,  like  his  father,  was  inspired  by  the 
same  liberal  ideas  which  were  henceforth  to  fur- 
nish the  sustaining^  influence  of  the  English- 
American  plantations. 

A  portion  of  the  fleet  which  reached  Virginia 
in  August,  1609,  had  returned  to  England  in  the 
fall,  filled  with  nothing  but  letters  of  discourage- 
ment relative  to  the  condition  of  affairs  in  Vir- 
ginia at  that  time.  To  offset  these  discouraging 
reports  the  managers  had  published  in  Decem- 
ber, 1609,  a  broadside,*  and  soon  after  "  A  True 
and  Sincere  declaration  of  the  purpose  and  ends 
of  the  Plantation  begun  in  Virginia,"  ^  in  which 
they  boldly  give  the  king's  "forme  of  govern- 
ment" as  one  of  "the  rootes"  of  the  past  "de- 
failements,"  and  state  their  intention  of  alter- 
ing it. 

Thomas  West,  Lord  De  la  Warr,  who  had 
been  commissioned  in  February,  1610,  as  lord- 
governor  and  captain-general  of  Virginia  for  life 
under  the  new  charter,  sailed  from  England  in 
April,  and  arrived  at  Point  Comfort,  Virginia,  on 

^  The  Genesis  of  the  United  States,  pp.  354-356. 
'  Ibid.  pp.  337-353. 


20  INAUGURATING  THE  MOVEMENT 

June  16th  follo^ving.  Sir  Thomas  Gates,  who 
liail  arrived  only  fourteen  days  before  with  his 
shipwrecked  people  from  the  Bermudas,  had 
found  the  old  planters  reduced  to  such  an  ex- 
hausted state  under  the  king's  form  of  govern- 
ment that  it  appeared  necessary  to  leave  the 
country,  at  least  temporarily,  and  on  June  17, 
1610,  Jamestown  was  abandoned.  But  the  pro- 
vidence which  had  protected  the  American  talis- 
man through  "  lightning  and  tempest  "  did  not 
forsake  it  in  "plague,  pestilence,  and  famine." 
On  the  next  day,  Captain  Edward  Brewster  (of 
Lord  De  la  Warr's  military  company,  which  had 
served  Maurice  of  Nassau,  and,  it  may  be,  Wil- 
liam the  Silent)  met  the  departing  colonists  at 
Mulberry  Island  with  orders  from  the  lord-gov- 
ernor, who  had  so  providentially  arrived,  for  Sir 
Thomas  Gates  "  to  bear  up  the  helm  and  return 
to  Jamestown,  where  all  of  his  menrelanded  that 
night ; "  but  Gates  himself,  in  a  boat,  proceeded 
downward  to  meet  his  lordship,  who,  making  aU 
speed  up,  arrived  at  Jamestown  on  Sunday,  June 
20,  1610.  In  the  afternoon  of  that  day.  Lord 
De  la  Warr  went  ashore  with  Sir  Ferdinando 
Wenman  and  others,  landing  at  the  south  gate 
of  the  palisade  fronting  the  river.  Sir  Thomas 
Gates  causing  his  company  in  arms,  under  Cap- 
tain George  Yeardley,  to  stand  in  order  and 
make  a  guard  to  receive  him.  As  soon  as  the 
lord-governor  landed  he  fell  upon  his  knees  be- 


OBTAINING  THE  SECOND  CHARTER  21 

fore  them  all,  and  on  the  bank  of  the  James  River 
made  a  long  and  silent  prayer  to  God.  Then, 
arising,  he  marched  up  into  the  town,  William 
Strachey  acting  on  this  especial  occasion  as  color- 
bearer,  bowing  the  colors  before  him  as  he  en- 
tered the  gate  of  Jamestown,  and  let  them  fall  at 
his  lordship's  feet,  who,  passing  on,  went  into  the 
church,  where  he  heard  a  sermon  by  Rev.  Rich- 
ard Buck,  and,  after  service,  caused  his  ensign, 
Anthony  Scott,  to  read  his  commission,  upon 
which  Sir  Thomas  Gates  delivered  up  to  his  lord- 
ship "  his  owne  commission,  both  patents  [the  old 
and  new  charters,  1606  and  1609],  and  the 
Counsell's  scale."  And  the  permanent  settle- 
ment of  this  country  by  the  Enghsh  definitely 
began  under  the  reform  movement  of  the  origi- 
nal of  the  body  politic  of  this  nation. 


CHAPTER  IV 

OBTAINING   THE    SECOND    CHARTER    OF   OUR   ORI- 
GINAL   BODY    POLITIC,    ETC.,  1610-1616 

Gates  and  Newport  sailed  from  Virginia  on 
July  25,  1610,  and  arrived  in  England  in  Sep- 
tember following,  bringing  the  news  of  the  dis- 
covery of  the  Bermudas.  The  managers  of  the 
movement  then  petitioned  for  another  charter, 


22  OBTAINING  THE  SECOND  CHARTER 

which  would  include  those  islands  within  their 
bounds,  and  which  would  convey  to  the  body 
politic  other  privileges  which  they  had  found  to 
be  desirable. 

This  petition  was  also  drafted  by  Sir  Edwin 
Sandys,  and  the  charter  was  drawn  up  by  Sir 
Francis  Bacon  and  Sir  Henry  Hobart. 

The  petition  was  granted  in  the  autumn  of 
1610,  but  the  opposition  of  the  Court  party, 
which  was  then  taking  definite  shape,  caused 
delay,  and  the  charter  was  not  signed  by  James  I. 
until  March  22, 1612.  The  importance  of  under- 
standing everything  pertaining  to  the  charters 
of  1609  and  1612  incorporating  the  embryo  of 
a  body  poHtic,  which  would  naturally  develop 
in  the  course  of  time  into  a  state  in  its  political 
capacity,  cannot  be  overestimated.  The  obtain- 
ing of  these  primal  charters  of  our  system  of 
government  was  the  most  important  political 
event  in  our  history. 

James  I.  wished  to  increase  his  dominions,  but 
lie  was  not  willing  to  risk  his  royal  revenues  in 
settling  plantations  in  America.  In  1606  he  had 
authorized  some  of  his  subjects  to  settle  in  those 
parts  at  their  own  expense ;  but  he  was  a  most 
earnest  advocate  of  every  royal  prerogative,  and 
he  reserved  to  himself  the  right  of  governing 
them  and  their  enterprises  according  to  his  own 
ideas.  Companies  of  adventurers  had  undertaken 
the  task  with  the  object  of  reimbursing  them- 


OBTAINING  THE  SECOND   CHARTER  23 

selves  for  their  outlay  by  finding  a  passage  to 
the  Pacific  Ocean,  or  by  discovering  gold  mines, 
or  other  enterprises  of  present  profit ;  but  before 
the  beginning  of  1609  their  hopes  had  generally 
faded  away,  while  the  difficulties,  dangers,  and 
expenses  of  the  undertaking  had  become  most 
evident.  It  was  not  to  the  interest  of  these  men 
to  carry  on  this  work,  even  with  a  fair  prospect 
of  success,  unless  they  could  better  their  condi- 
tion or  the  condition  of  their  posterity  thereby. 
The  original  commercial  objects  had  been  so  far 
from  being  realized  that  it  was  necessary  for 
some  vital  influence  to  inspire  the  enterprise  in 
order  to  enable  it  to  succeed.  Even  if  the  advo- 
cates of  the  king's  form  of  government  were 
willing  to  continue  to  prosecute  the  enterprise  at 
their  own  expense  under  the  government  of 
James  I.,  of  course  those  among  the  adventurers 
who  were  then  beginning  to  breathe  the  princi- 
ples of  liberty  did  not  wish  to  secure  the  country 
at  the  expense  of  their  own  blood  and  treasure, 
if  there  was  to  be  established  in  that  country 
thus  secured  by  them  a  form  of  government 
which  they  regarded  as  an  absolute  tyranny. 
But  after  considering  the  state  of  the  case  these 
men  became  inspired  with  the  needed  vis  vitce, 
and  resolved,  if  they  were  permitted  to  secure 
a  large  definite  boundary  and  to  establish  therein 
for  the  future  good  of  posterity  a  reform  gov- 
ernment "  conforming  with  the  EngHsh  constitu- 


24  UBTAINING   THE  SECOND   CHARTER 

tion,"  as  construed  in  the  most  favorable  way  to 
them,  that  they  would  then  undertake  the  task 
and  willingly  carry  it  on,  even  if  they  did  have 
to  do  so  solely  at  the  expense  of  their  own  blood 
and  treasure. 

The  leading  purposes  of  the  charters  petitioned 
for  were  to  incorporate  a  body  politic  and  enable 
that  body  to  take  the  government  of  the  move- 
ment from  James  I. ;  and  the  desire  to  establish 
in  America  a  reform  government  as  a  refuge 
from  tlie  tyranny  obtaining  in  England  became 
the  leading  incentive  of  the  enterprise. 

Of  course  the  charters  were  open  to  all  parties, 
and  members  of  both  national  political  parties 
were  included  in  our  original  body  politic  ;  but 
the  movement  was  under  the  administration  of 
the  Patriot  party  from  1609  to  1624,  and  the  en- 
terprise was  carried  '  forward  during  that  time 
under  the  manajjement  of  those  who  held  to  the 
right  ends  declared.'  Those  not  animated  by 
the  inspiring  desire  soon  began  to  drop  out,  to 
fail  to  pay  their  dues,  etc.,  and  some  became 
critics  of  the  patriotic  managers,  and  active  op- 
])()nents  of  their  plan  for  protecting  in  the  New 
World  "  the  hberty  of  the  subject  from  the  en- 
croachment of  the  crown  ;  "  while  those  under 
the  sustaining  influence  continued  to  advance 
their  purposes  to  the  projected  ends  regardless 
of  adverse  criticism  and  all  sorts  of  opposition, 
even  when  in  doing  so  they  were  obliged  to  face 


OBTAINING  THE  SECOND  CHARTER  25 

king-,  council,  and  courts,  at  the  risk  of  imprison-^ 
ment  and  sudden  death. 

The  reformers  from  the  first  were  evidently 
f  idly  aware  of  the  great  importance  of  the  char- 
ter rights  which  they  had  now  obtained.  As 
stated  in  "  The  New  Life  of  Virginia,"  they  re- 
garded the  movement  as  '  a  work  of  such  conse- 
quence as  for  many  important  reasons  it  must 
never  be  forsaken,'  although  at  the  same  time 
they  well  knew  that  there  were  "  manifold  diffi- 
culties, crosses,  and  disasters "  to  be  met  and 
overcome  before  "  the  most  excellent  things " 
which  they  were  aiming  at  could  be  secured.  (hf-h-^^  • 

The  ultimate  pohtical   objects  were  properly   5^^*-^*^  ^^mX^ 
held  in  a  state  of  abeyance  during  the  period  of     ^■''<-j^  ^^ 
the  first  joint  stock,  1609-1616,  when  the  coun-       '^^^-^^ 
try  was    being    secured   from    the    Indians  and 
Spaniards ;  and  the  colony  was  being  planted  en- 
tirely at  the  joint  expense  of  the  corporation, 
and  being  made  sufficiently  strong  to  enable  it 
to  stand  the  shock  of  opposition  when  it  came. 
And  the  Patriots  must  have  felt  that  it  was  com- 
ing (as  it  did  come)  as  soon  as  the  political  ob- 
jects became  apparent  to  the  crown. 

I  have  dealt  very  fully  with  the  case  during 
this  period  both  in  "  The  Genesis  of  the  United 
States  "  and  in  "  The  First  Republic  in  America," 
and  must  refer  those  who  may  wish  to  have  a 
more  extended  account  to  those  books.  The 
idea  of  a  liberal  government  for  America  devel- 


26  INAUGURATING  THE  GOVERNMENT 

oped  during  the  most  remarkable  transition  pe- 
riod in  English  history,  and  although  this  idea 
was  bitterly  opposed  by  James  I.  and  the  Court 
party,  it  received  the  support  of  some  of  the 
greatest  patriots,  business  men,  statesmen,  poli- 
ticians, soldiers,  sailors,  and  most  broadminded 
churchmen  of  that  period. 


CHAPTER  V 

INAUGURATING     THE     REFORM      GOVERNMENT     IN 
AMERICA,   1616-1619 

James  L  had  been  crowned  king  when  he  was 
less  than  fourteen  months  old ;  had  been  a  king 
ever  since  he  could  remember,  and  regarded  the 
right  of  kings  to  rule  absolutely  as  being  next 
under  God.  In  1616  he  wrote  "  A  Remon- 
strance of  the  most  gratious  King  James  I. 
for  the  Rights  of  Kings,  and  the  independence 
of  their  Crownes ; "  and  in  the  same  year  began 
to  show  his  hand  ao^ainst  the  freedom  of  action 
of  the  managers  by  having  certain  royal  features 
inserted  in  Captain  John  Martin's  patent  ^  for 
lands  in  Virginia,  thus  opportunely  placing  the 
managers  of  the  movement  on  their  guard  before 
the  end  of  the  first  joint  stock.     They  had  been 

*  See  The  Virginia  Magazine  of  History  and  Biography,  vol. 
vii.  pp.  269-275. 


INAUGURATING  THE   GOVERNMENT  27 

obliged  to  use  diplomacy  from  the  first,  but  this 
act  served  a  good  turn  by  causing  them  to  act 
with  additional  circumspection  at  a  most  impor- 
tant turning  point  in  their  movement. 

The  end  of  the  absolute  joint  stock  period 
(Dec.  1616)  found  a  portion  of  the  country  ap- 
parently secured  from  the  Indians  and  Spaniards 
and  the  colony  quite  well  established.  The  citi- 
zens of  this  country  were  then  to  be  given  under 
their  charter  their  fixed  property  rights  in  the 
soil,  and  every  man's  portion  was  to  be  con- 
firmed "  as  a  state  of  inheritance  to  him  and  his 
lieyers  forever,  with  bounds  and  under  the  Com- 
panies seale,  to  be  holden  of  his  Maiestie,  as  of 
his  Manour  of  East  Greenwich,  in  Socage  Ten- 
m-e  and  not  in  Capite."  Early  in  1617  Captain 
Samuel  Argall  was  sent  as  deputy  governor  of 
Virginia,  with  special  commissioners  and  a  spe- 
cial surveyor,  to  carry  out  these  designs.  There 
had  already  been  settled  a  laudable  form  of  gov- 
ernment for  the  courts  of  the  body  politic  which 
were  held  at  the  capital  in  London.  After  the  >?-^*<^'-; 
people  were  given  their  fixed  property  rights  in 
Virginia,  it  became  necessary  for  the  managers 
to  "  bend  their  cares  to  the  settling  of  a  laudable 
form  of  government  in  the  colony."  With  this 
object  in  view  they  chose  Sir  Edwin  Sandys,  who 
had  drafted  their  charters,  as  an  assistant  to  Sir 
Thomas  Smith,  for  the  especial  purpose  of  super- 
intending the  inauguration  of  the  original  polit- 


28  INAUGURATING  THE  GOVERNMENT 

ical  designs  iu  America.  The  intent  was  to 
establish  one  equal  and  uniform  kind  of  govern- 
ment over  all  Virginia,  such  as  may  be  to  the 
greatest  benefit  and  comfort  of  the  people,  in 
which  they  were  to  have  a  hand  in  the  governing 
of  themselves;  in  which  they  were  to  be  eased 
forever  of  all  taxes,  public  burthens,  etc.,  as 
much  as  may  be ;  in  which  they  were  to  have  no 
government,  taxes,  etc.,  put  upon  them  but  by 
their  own  consents,  etc.,  etc. 

The  London  house  of  Sir  Edwin  Sandys, 
where  the  consultations  over  the  form  of  govern- 
ment for  Virginia  were  generally  held,  was  near 
Aldersgate,  —  the  gate  through  which  James  I. 
first  entered  London,  in  1603 ;  and  it  is  interest- 
ing to  note  that  this  gate  was  being  rebuilt  by 
the  crown  as  a  monument  to  the  royal  government 
of  James  I.  at  the  same  time  that  the  plans 
for  a  reform  government  for  our  nation  were  be- 
ing developed  in  sight  of  the  gate  by  Sir  Edwin 
Sandys,  in  consultation  with  the  Earl  of  South- 
ampton, John  Selden,  the  Ferrars,  John  White, 
and  others.  There  was  a  figure  of  James  I. 
in  high  relief  over  the  arch  of  the  gate.  On 
the  eastern  side  were  these  lines :  "  Then  shall 
enter  into  the  gates  of  this  city  Kings  and 
Princes ;  sitting  upon  the  throne  of  David,  rid- 
ing in  chariots  and  on  horses,  they  and  their 
Princes,  the  men  of  Judah,  and  the  inhabitants 
of  Jerusalem,  and  this  city  shall  remain  for  ever." 


INAUGURATING  THE  GOVERNMENT     29 

On  the  western  side  were  these  hnes  :  "  And  Sam- 
uel said  unto  all  Israel,  Behold,  I  have  hearkened 
unto  your  voice  in  all  that  you  said  unto  me,  and 
have  made  a  KING  over  you."  On  the  south- 
ern side  was  a  bas-relief  of  James  in  his  royal 
robes. 

Some  of  the  plans  of  the  patriots  for  the  re- 
form government  in  Virginia  were  probably  em- 
bodied in  the  instructions  and  commissions  sent 
to  the  colony  by  Lord  De  la  Warr  in  April, 
1618 ;  but  he  died  e7i  route.  The  documents 
sent  by  him  have  not  been  found,  but  others, 
possibly  of  a  similar  character,  —  instructions, 
a  constitution,  and  the  American  Magna  Charta 
(so  called,  but  it  was  not  so  great  as  the  charters 
of  1609  and  1612,  from  which  it  derived  its  au- 
thority), —  w^ere  ratified  by  the  Virginia  court  in 
London,  November  28,  1618,  and  carried  to  the 
colony  by  Sir  George  Yeardley  in  January,  1619. 
The  authority  for  these  instruments  was  derived 
from  the  charters  to  "  the  body  politic,"  and 
under  the  authority  of  these  instruments  there 
was  inaugurated  at  Jamestown  in  August  follow- 
ing "  the  first  example  of  a  domestic  parliament 
to  regulate  the  internal  concerns  of  this  country, 
which  was  afterwards  cherished  throughout  Amer- 
ica as  the  dearest  birthright  of  freemen."  ^ 

^  See  The  Green  Bag,  vol.  v.  p.  216  ;  The  Virginia  Magazine  of 
History  and  Biography,  vol.  vii.  pp.  270, 271,  and  The  First  Repub- 
lic in  America,  pp.  313-323,  456. 


30  CONTROVERSY  BECOMES  CONTEST 


CHAPTER  VI 

THE  CONTROVERSY  BETWEEN  THE  COURT  AND 
THE  PATRIOT  PARTIES  BECOMES  AN  OPEN 
CONTEST    OVER   THE    REFORM    MOVEMENT 

At  the  Virginia  Coui't  on  May  8,  1619,  Sir 
Thomas  Smith  retired  and  Sir  Edwin  Sandys 
succeeded  him  as  treasurer,  and  Mr.  John  Ferrar 
succeeded  Alderman  Robert  Johnson  as  deputy 
treasurer  of  the  corporation.  It  had  come  to 
pass  that  the  loyalty  of  Sir  Thomas  Smith  and 
Alderman  Johnson  to  the  Patriot  party  was 
doubted,  and  soon  after  this  we  find  them  affili- 
ating with  the  Court  party,  aiding  that  party  in 
their  pohtical  pui-poses,  and  obscuring  rather  than 
throwing  light  upon  the  patriotic  purposes  of 
their  own  administration  of  the  corporation  from 
1G09  to  1619. 

The  Spanish  ministers  to  England,  Zuniga  and 
Velasco,  from  1606  to  1613  had  continually 
opposed  the  settlement  of  the  English  in  ter- 
ritory claimed  by  Spain,  even  to  urging  the 
Spanish  king  to  remove  the  colonists  by  force 
of  arms.  The  celebrated  Count  Gondomar  ar- 
rived in  England  as  ambassador  from  Spain  in 
August,  1613,  and  at  first  pursued  a  similar 
course ;  but  having  put  his  spies  at  work  look- 


CONTROVERSY  BECOMES  CONTEST  31 

ing  into  the  Virginia  business,  he  became  con- 
vinced, prior  to  December,   1616:    First,  that 
the  EngHsh  would  never  yield  to  such  opposition 
and  threatening ;  second,  that  some  deep  politi- 
cal scheme  was  animating  the  Virginia  courts. 
He  then  altered  his  diplomatic  plans  for  sup- 
pressing the  colony,  and  began  to  work  on  the 
tenderest  spot  in  the  mind  of  James  I.     He  as- 
sured the  English   king  that   there  were  deep 
pohticians  in  the  Virginia  Company  with  farther 
designs  than  a  tobacco  plantation  ;  "  that  though 
they  might  have  a  fair  pretence  for  their  meet- 
ings, yet  he  would  find  in  the  end  that  the  Vir- 
ginia Court  in  London  would  prove  a  seminary 
for  a  seditious  Parliament."     James  I.  was  as-\ 
sured  that  "  the  matter  was  too  high  arid  great 
for  private  7iien  to  manage  ;  that  it  was  there- 
fore proper  for  him  to  take  it  into  his  own  hands, 
and  to  govern  and  order  it  both  at  home  and 
abroad  according  to  his  own  will  and  pleasure.'* 
This  politic  line  of  argument  had  the  effect  de- 
sired.    The  progress  of  the  colony  under  the  in- 
spiration of   free  ideas   over   difficulties   which 
hitherto  had  been  insurmountable  had  already 
alarmed  James  I.,  and  he   now  determined  to 
put  an  end  to  the  popular  course  of  the  Vir- 
ginia Corporation.     With   that   object   in  view, 
he  resolved  that  Sir  Edwin  Sandys  should  not  be 
continued  as  treasurer  or  manager  of  that  body 
politic,  and  requested  the  Easter  Quarter  Court 


32  CONTROVERSY  BECOMES  CONTEST 

(May  27,  1G20)  "to  make  choice  of  Sir  Thomas 
Smythe,  Sir  Thomas  Roe,  Mr.  Alderman  John- 
son,  or  Mr.   Maurice  Abbott,   and  no   other." 
When  this  request  was  presented  by  Mr.  Rob- 
ert Kirkham,  one  of  the  clerks  of  the  signet, 
the  earls  of   Pembroke  and  Southampton  told 
the  court  that  this  was  "  the  beginning  of  a  move 
against  the  company's  just  freedom  of  election, 
granted  by  letters  patent"  —  one  of  their  char- 
ter rights.     The  body  poHtic  was  not  wilhng  to 
yield  to  the  king's  request  and  thus  to  "  suffer 
a  great  breach  unto  their  privilege  of  free  elec- 
tion."    They  determined  to  defer  their  election 
to  the  next  quarter  court,  and  appointed  a  com- 
mittee to  wait  upon  the  king  about  the  matter. 
On  May  29  the  committee  (H.  Wriothesly  Earl 
of   Southampton,  J.  Hay  Viscount   Doncaster, 
William  Lord   Cavendish,  Edmond  Lord   Shef- 
field, Sir  John  Danvers,  Sir   Nicholas   Tufton, 
Sir  Lawrence  Hide,  Mr.  Christopher  Brooke,  Mr. 
Edward  Herbert,  Mr.  Thomas  Gibbs,  Mr.  Thomas 
Keightley,  and   Mr.  William   Cranmer)  met  at 
Southampton  House,  and  drafted  an  answer  to 
the  king's  request  for  the  election  of  one  of  those 
selected  by  himself  as  treasurer  of  the  corporation. 
When   this   answer  was   presented  to  James  I. 
at  his  chambers,  notwithstanding  the  fact  that 
it  was  couched  in  the  most  loyal  terms,  notwith- 
standing all  argument,  the  king  "  remained  ob- 
stinately excepting   against   the   person  of   Sir 


CONTROVERSY  BECOMES  CONTEST  33 

Edwin  Sandys,  declaring  him  to  be  his  greatest 
enemy,  and  that  he  could  hardly  think  well  of 
w^homsoever  was  his  friend  —  and  all  this  in  a 
furious  passion,  returning  the  committee  no  other 
answer  but  choose  the  Devil  if  you  will,  hut  not 
Sir  Edwin  Sandy sJ^ 

When  Sir  John  Danvers,  a  few  weeks  later, 
asked  the  Earl  of  Southampton  if  he  would  ac- 
cept the  place  if  the  company  chose  him  trea- 
surer at  their  next  quarter  court,  he  rephed,  "  I 
know  the  king  will  be  angry  at  it,  but  so  the 
expectation  of  this  pious  and  glorious  work  may 
be  encouraged,  let  the  company  do  with  me 
what  they  please."  The  next  court  on  July  8, 
1620,  reasserted  their  right  to  free  election,  and 
elected  the  Earl  of  Southampton  as  treasurer, 
with  the  understanding  that  Sandys  should 
continue  his  services  ^  in  prosecuting  still  those 
political  ways  which  might  give  satisfaction  to 
the  patriotic  undertakers.' 

So  far  from  these  open  controversies  with  the 
king  having  had  a  depressing  effect  at  this  time 
on  the  resolution  of  the  managers,  Arthur  Wo- 
denoth  says  that  ^  the  public  asserting  of  their 
charter  rights  at  the  Easter  Quarter  Court,  at  the 
meeting  of  the  committee  with  James  I.,  and  at 
the  Trinity  Term  (July  8)  Quarter  Court  much 
raised  the  spirits  of  the  Patriot  party  in  the  Vir- 
ginia Company.' 

In  order  to  prevent  confusion  in  the  mind  of 


34  CONTROVERSY  BECOME^  CONTEST 

students  of  these  premises  it  must  be  explained 
that  there  were  parties  in  the  corporation  with 
different  opinions  regarding  business  matters, 
tobacco  contracts,  the  magazine,  etc.,  but  I  have 
given  an  outline  of  the  growth  of  these  parties 
in  "  The  First  Republic  in  America,"  ^  and  we 
are  not  now  considering  these  questions.  The 
political  issues  of,  and  over,  the  body  politic  with 
which  we  are  now  dealing  were  really  between  the 
national  Court  and  Patriot  parties,  and  should 
not  be  confused  with  the  party  issues  in  the  cor- 
poration, although  these  strictly  company  parties 
may  have  from  time  to  time  in  the  advancement 
of  their  purposes  affiliated  with  one  or  the  other 
of  the  national  parties  to  such  an  extent  as  to 
make  it,  sometimes,  very  hard  to  draw  the  party 
lines  accurately. 

The  Virginia  Court  of  July  17,  1620,  ap- 
pointed several  committees  for  perfecting  the 
form  of  government  which  was  being  estab- 
lished in  the  colony :  The  committee  to  select 
from  the  laws  of  England  such  as  were  suitable 
laws  for  the  colony  was  composed  of  Sir  Thomas 
Roe,  Mr.  Christopher  Brooke,  Mr.  John  Selden, 
Mr.  Edward  Herbert,  and  Mr.  Philip  Jermyn ; 
to  select  from  the  charters,  instructions,  orders, 
etc.,  and  the  Acts  of  Assembly  in  the  colony 
such  laws  as  were  fit  to  be  made  permanent  was 
composed  of  Sir  Edwin  Sandys,  Sir  John  Dan- 

1  See  pp.  244,  267,  268,  280,  289,  301,  305-307,  and  398. 


FIRST  APPEAL  TO   PARLIAMENT  35 

vers,  Mr.  John  Wroth,  and  Mr.  Samuel  Wrote ; 
to  select  from  the  municipal  governments  of  the 
cities  in  England  a  model  government  for  the 
incorporations  in  the  colony  was  composed  of 
Mr.  Robert  Heath,  Mr.  Robert  Smith,  Mr.  Nicho- 
las Ferrar,  Mr.  William  Cranmer,  and  Mr.  George 
Chambers.  A  portion  of  the  labors  of  these 
committees  will  be  found  embodied  in  the  docu- 
ments taken  to  the  colony  by  Sir  Francis  Wyatt 
in  the  summer  of  1621. 


CHAPTER  VII 

FIRST  EFFORT  TO   PROTECT  THE  CHARTER  RIGHTS 
BY    ACT    OF    PARLIAMENT 

Parliament  had  always  been  looked  to  as  the 
friend  of  the  movement,  and  both  the  first  and 
second  parliaments  of  James  I.  had  been  appealed 
to  in  that  behalf.*  Knowing  that  Gondomar  had 
been  ferreting  out  their  political  objects  and 
impressing  his  views  on  the  mind  of  James  I., 
the  Patriot  party  in  the  body  politic  now  felt 
the  need  for  strengthening  and  protecting  their 
political  charter  rights.  About  November  20, 
1G20,  it  was  resolved  "for  some  important  rea- 
sons "  to  obtain  a  new  charter,  and  on  November 
25th  the  Virginia  Court  determined  to  try  to 

'  See  The  First  Republic  in  America,  pp.  11-17,  20,  75,  122, 
200,  215,  216. 


3G  FIRST  APPEAL  TO  PARLIAMENT 

have  further  privileges  and  immunities  inserted, 
and  also  to  have  the  charter  confirmed  by  act 
of  Parliament.  Sandys,  Southampton,  Selden, 
Edward  Herbert,  John  Ferrar,  and  probably  oth- 
ers, were  employed  in  drafting  this  new  charter. 

The  third  Parliament  of  James  I.  met  Feb- 
ruary 9, 1021 ;  Sir  Edwin  Sandys  was  a  member 
for  Sandwich,  but  he  did  not  attend  during  the 
first  week,  and  his  brother,  Sir  Samuel  Sandys, 
in  explaining  his  absence,  stated  that  'he  was 
interested  in  dra's\dng  a  patent  about  the  Virginia 
business,  and  asked  the  House  of  Commons  to 
excuse  him  till  that  business  was  over.' 

On  March  4,  1621,  Sir  Edwin  presented  the 
draft  of  the  new  patent  to  the  Virginia  Court, 
which  approved  of  it,  determined  to  have  it  con- 
firmed by  act  of  Parliament,  and  a  letter  was 
sent  to  James  I.  about  it.  "  The  draught  of  the 
new  charter"  was  soon  presented  by  Sir  Edwin 
Sandys,  Edward  Herbert,  Esq.,  and  Mr.  John 
Ferrar  to  Attorney-General  Coventry  for  him  to 
prepare  the  charter  therefrom  for  the  king's  sig- 
nature ;  but  he  at  once  found  fault  with  it  (he 
may  have  been  instructed  to  do  so),  and  refused 
to  draw  up  the  instrument  without  a  special  war- 
rant from  James  I.  In  April,  1621,  James  Hay 
Lord  Doncaster  presented  a  petition  from  the 
corporation  to  the  king  for  this  special  warrant, 
and  the  matter  was  considered  by  the  Privy 
Council  in  May ;  but  I  have  foimd  no  evidence 


\ 


FIRST  APPEAL  TO   PARLIAMENT  37 

that  the  warrant  asked  for  was  ever  sent  to  the 
attorney-general,  or  that  the  charter  was  ever 
presented  to  Parliament  for  confirmation  by  act. 

In  the  spring  of  1G21,  James  Marquess  of 
Hamilton  and  William  Herbert  Earl  of  Pem- 
broke, two  liberal  noblemen,  solemnly  affirmed 
to  the  Earl  of  Southampton  that  they  had  heard 
Gondomar  say  to  James  I.  "  that  it  was  time  for 
him  to  look  to  the  Virginia  courts  which  were 
kept  at  the  Ferrars'  house,  where  too  many  of 
his  nobility  and  gentry  resorted  to  accompany 
the  popular  Lord  Southampton  and  the  danger- 
ous Sandvs." 

The  king  was  evidently  determined  to  put  a 
stop  to  the  proceeding  before  Parliament  with 
the  proposed  new  charter,  and  had  probably 
made  up  his  mind  to  put  a  stop  to  the  whole 
Virginia  business.  In  view  of  the  alHance  be- 
tween Prince  Charles  and  the  Infanta,  diplomati- 
cally proposed  by  Gondomar,  the  king  is  said  to 
have  resolved  to  surrender  unto  Spain  Virginia 
and  the  Bermudas,  to  annul  the  colonization 
charters,  and  to  quit  altogether  the  Spanish  West 
Indies  (America).  The  Patriots  in  our  original 
body  politic  were  aware  of  these  purposes,  and 
attributed  them  to  "  a  secret  Court  -  Spanish 
party  "  under  the  influence  of  Gondomar ;  but 
they  were  not  willing  to  yield  their  rights.  There 
were  many  Patriots  in  the  House  of  Commons, 
and  with  their  aid  the  Patriots  in  the  Viroinia 


'& 


9  9^1  Q 

o  .^y  O  JL  D 


38  FIRST  APPEAL  TO  PARLIAMENT 

Corporation,  as  we  have  seen,  were  trying  to 
forestall  James  I.  in  these  his  intentions  by 
making  their  charter  rights  as  secure  as  they 
could  by  having  them  confirmed  by  act  of  Par- 
liament, when,  on  June  14th,  James  I.  prorogued 
the  ParUament  to  November  30th,  and  on  June 
2Gth  (during  vacation)  had  Southampton,  Sandys, 
and  Selden  arrested.  This  arrest  of  a  member 
of  the  House  of  Lords  and  of  a  member  of  the 
House  of  Conmions  during  recess  was  a  breach 
of  the  privileges  of  Parliament  and  an  evidence 
of  the  desperate  purposes  of  the  crown.  It  caused 
a  great  commotion,  and  James  I.  felt  it  advisable 
to  issue  a  proclamation  to  the  effect  that  Sandys 
was  not  restrained  for  his  acts  in  ParHament,  but 
for  other  personal  matters.  John  Ferrar  and 
Arthur  Wodenoth  both  say  that  it  was  the  busi- 
ness of  the  Virginia  charters  which  caused  the 
arrests. 

They  are  said  to  have  been  released  on  July 
28th,  but,  although  released  from  arrest,  Sandys 
was  restrained  to  his  house  in  Kent.  When  Par- 
liament reassembled  on  November  30th  the  mat- 
ter was  at  once  taken  in  hand  by  the  House.  Mr. 
Mallory  soon  rose  and  said  —  in  the  abbreviated 
wordins:  of  the  Commons  Journal  —  "  misseth 
Sir  Edwin  Sandys.  Moveth  we  may  know  what 
is  become  of  him." 

On  December  11th  the  Commons  appointed 
Sir  Peter  Hayman  and  Sir  James  Mallory  a  com- 


FIRST  APPEAL  TO   PARLIAMENT  39 

mittee  to  go  into  Kent  and  "  see  what  state  Sir 
Edwin  Sandys  is  in,  and  if  he  is  sick,  indeed,  to 
return  his  answer,  whether  he  were  committed 
and  examined  about  anything  done  in  Parlia- 
ment, or  about  any  ParHamentary  Business." 

In  indorsing  this  motion  Sir  George  Moore, 
who  had  contributed  over  $3500  to  the  Ameri- 
can movement,  said :  "  Any  one  was  unworthy 
to  Hve  who  would  betray  the  privileges  of  this 
House.  This  our  principal  Freedom.  Never  in 
all  his  Time  [he  had  been  a  member  since  1584] 
knew  greater  care  to  preserve  their  Liberties  than 
this  Assembly." 

On  December  28th,  the  Commons,  in  reply  to 
the  king's  letter,  wrote  the  memorable  protesta- 
tion, in  which  they  assert  that  "  every  member 
of  the  House  hath,  and  of  right  ought  to  have, 
freedom  of  speech,"  etc.,  which  was  afterwards 
torn  from  the  Commons  Journal  by  the  king 
and  with  his  own  hands  destroyed ;  but  I  have 
given  an  outline  of  these  proceedings  in  "  The 
First  Republic  in  America,"  and  it  is  not  neces- 
sary to  repeat. 

The  party  which  was  trying  to  protect  the 
charter  rights  of  our  primal  body  politic  ^  by 
act  of  Parliament  had  now  become  so  strong 
that  the  counter  purposes  of  the  Court  party 
could  not  be  carried  out  even   by  an  absolute 

^  Of  the  members  of  our  original  body  politic  about  300  were 
also  at  different  times  members  of  the  House  of  Commons. 


40  FIRST  APPEAL  TO   PARLIAMENT 

king,  without  some  pretense  of  justice.  This 
party  contained  some  of  the  most  influential  men 
in  England,  there  was  a  very  strong  following 
among  the  people,  some  prestige  even  in  the 
House  of  Lords,  and  an  ever-increasing  author- 
ity in  the  House  of  Commons.  And  this  Parlia- 
ment to  which  they  wished  to  appeal  in  behalf 
of  their  charter  rights  was  a  most  vigorous  one 
—  alike  in  the  correction  of  abuses  and  in  the 
defense  of  liberties.  Therefore  the  conduct  of 
James  I.  in  the  case  was  constantly  diplomatic. 
He  had  found  it  necessary  for  his  purposes  to 
prorogue  the  session  ;  to  arrest  Sandys  and 
others ;  then  to  apologize.  And  there  was  some 
prospect  of  success  with  the  Virginia  business  if 
the  Patriots  had  been  able  to  get  their  case  be- 
fore the  House ;  but  the  king  dissolved  it,  and 
thus  the  charter  act  was  not  permitted  to  pass 
the  Parliament. 

The  period  of  this  Parliament  should  be  care- 
fully considered  in  these  premises,  as  it  was  evi- 
dently a  most  important  one  in  the  history  of  the 
movement  which  gave  birth  to  this  nation.  It 
was  during  these  political  proceedings  of  so  far 
reaching  importance  to  the  Anglo-Saxon  race 
that  the  committees  of  the  body  conducting  that 
movement  were  preparing  the  laws  for  the  re- 
form government  establishing  in  Virginia,  and 
it  was  on  August  3, 1621,  that  the  Virginia  Court 
(the  "  Seminary  of  Sedition  "  of  James  I.)  signed 


FIRST   APPEAL  TO   PARLIAMENT  41 

and  sealed  duplicates  of  the  ordinance  and  con- 
stitution which  had  been  prepared  to  be  sent  to 
Virginia  by  the  recently  elected  governor,  Sir 
Francis  Wyatt.  The  intent  of  the  managers  of 
the  body  politic  was,  "  by  the  divine  assistance, 
to  settle  in  Virginia  such  a  form  of  government 
as  may  be  to  the  greatest  benefit  and  comfort  of 
the  people,  and  whereby  all  injustice,  grievances, 
and  oppression  may  be  prevented  and  kept  off  as 
much  as  possible  from  the  said  colony." 

Besides  the  charter  case  there  was  another  im- 
portant case,  in  these  premises,  before  this  Par- 
liament. In  the  summer  of  1618  Captain  John 
Bargrave  brought  suit  against  Sir  Thomas  Smith 
and  others.  The  case  Avent  throuofh  the  Vir- 
ginia  courts ;  then  into  chancery ;  then  before 
this  Parliament;  and  (after  Parliament  was  dis- 
solved) before  the  Privy  Council.  During  this 
controversy  Bargrave  repeatedly  warned  the  royal 
courts  against  "  the  popular  government  "  which 
was  being  instituted  under  the  popular  charters, 
and  constantly  urged  them  to  take  prompt  and 
vigorous  steps  for  tying  Virginia  to  the  crown  of 
England. 


42  THE  CONTINUED  CONTEST 


CHAPTER  VIII 

THE  CONTINUED  CONTEST  BETWEEN  THE  COURT 
AND  PATRIOT  PARTIES  OVER  OUR  CHARTER 
RIGHTS 

Count  Gondomar,  having  apparently  suc- 
ceeded in  his  mission,  left  England  for  Spain  in 
May,  1G22,  and  James  I.,  in  carrying  forward  his 
intentions  against  our  charter  rights,  proceeded 
with  discretion.  He  sent  a  very  polite  message 
to  the  Virginia  Easter  Court  (June  1,  1622) 
"  signifying  that  although  it  was  not  his  desire 
to  Infrbuje  their  liberty  of  free  election,  yet  it 
would  be  pleasing  unto  him  if  they  made  choice 
for  Treasurer "  from  five  merchants  whom  he 
mentions  ;  ^  which  message  the  Virginia  Court  — 
meeting  diplomacy  with  diplomacy  —  pretended 
to  regard  as  "a  full  remonstrance  of  his  Majesty's 
well-wishing  unto  the  plantation,  and  of  his  gra- 
cious meaning  not  to  infringe  the  priviledges  of 
the  company,  and  the  liberty  of  their  free  elec- 
tions ; "  and  thereupon  proceeding  with  their 
election  they  gave  the  Patriot  candidate,  the  Earl 
of  Southampton,  117  ballots,  while  the  king's 
candidates  received  only  20  votes  in  all.  The 
Virginia  Court  then  requested  William  Lord  Cav- 

'  See  The  First  Republic  in  America,  p.  476. 


THE  CONTINUED   CONTEST  43 

endish,  William  Lord  Paget,  and  John  Holies 
Lord  Houghton  '  to  present  their  most  humble 
thanks  to  his  Majesty  for  his  good  laishes  to  their 
affairs  without  desire  to  infringe  their  liberty 
of  free  election,*  etc.  When  the  committee  pre- 
sented this  really  sarcastic  message,  James  L, 
very  naturally,  "  flung  himself  away  in  a  furious 
passion,"  and  Prince  Charles  had  to  act  as  a  peace- 
maker. 

The  Patriots  never  hesitated  in  contendinsr  for 
our  charter  rights  at  any  time,  and  at  the  Vir- 
ginia courts  during  this  period  they  did  not  hesi- 
tate to  assert  that  James  I.  was  acting  in  the 
matter  in  the  interest  of  Spain,  under  the  influ- 
ence of  Gondomar.  And  even  the  Court  party 
must  have  felt  the  need  of  proceeding  with  diplo- 
macy, for  although  James  I.  was  "  an  absolute 
king,"  the  Patriot  party  was  using  a  club  which 
then  had  great  force  in  England.  But  when  the 
news  of  the  massacre  of  the  Virginians  by  the 
Indians  reached  England  late  in  June,  1622,  the 
Court  party,  attributing  that  incident  to  "  mis- 
government  "  (that  is,  to  the  popular  course  of 
government),  seized  upon  it  as  furnishing  the  de- 
sired excuse  for  suppressing  the  movement,  and 
the  Patriots  were  obliged  to  use,  if  possible, 
greater  discretion  than  ever,  until  the  good  re- 
ports brought  from  Virginia  by  the  ships  which 
arrived  about  Christmas,  1622,  put  them  on  the 
aggressive  again. 


44  THE  CONTINUED  CONTEST 

Early  in  1623  "  A  Declaration  of  the  present 
state  of  Virginia  comparatively  with  what  had 
been  done  in  former  times  "  was  draw^n  up  and 
set  forth  by  the  order  of  the  Earl  of  South- 
ampton, then  treasurer  of  the  corporation.  The 
officials  of  the  "  former  times  "  were  now  acting 
with  the  Court  party.  Alderman  Johnson  repHed 
to  this  declaration  at  once,  and  the  Virginia  Cor- 
poration was  soon  di\aded  into  bitter  political 
parties.  Wodenoth  says  that,  '  owing  to  the  con- 
stant opposition  of  James  I.  and  to  the  inquisition 
of  the  Privy  Council,  many  Lords  and  others  of 
all  ranks  of  the  more  timorous  nature  now  fell 
from  the  true  sense  and  justice  of  the  work 
chiefly  intended,'  and  these  men  formed  a  party 
in  the  body  politic  itself  which  aided  the  Court 
party  in  having  the  charters  annulled,  and  the 
government  resumed,  by  the  crown. 

The  party  in  the  corporation  which  was  will- 
ing to  surrender  our  charter  rights  to  the  king 
and  affiliated  with  the  Court  party  was  led  by 
Robert  Rich  Earl  of  Warwick,  Sir  Thomas 
Smith,  Sir  Nathaniel  Rich,  Sir  Henry  Mildmay, 
Alderman  Johnson,  and  others.  The  party  not 
willing  to  surrender  our  charter  rights  to  the 
king,  hoping,  with  the  aid  of  the  Patriot  party 
in  Parliament,  to  be  able  to  hold  on  to  those 
rights,  was  led  by  Henry  Wriothesley  Earl  of 
Southampton,  William  Lord  Cavendish,  Sir  Ed- 
win   Sandys,  Sir   Edward    Sackville,    Sir   John 


THE   CONTINUED   CONTEST  45 

Ogle,  and  many  more.  The  case,  ostensibly, 
between  these  two  parties  in  the  Virginia  Corpo- 
ration, but  really  between  the  crown  of  England 
and  the  original  of  our  body  politic,  was  up  be- 
fore James  I.  and  his  Privy  Council  in  January, 
February,  March,  and  April,  1623,  documents 
being  read  and  witnesses  heard  for  both  sides. 
By  the  latter  part  of  April  the  case  had  reached 
an  acute  state. 

On  April  22d,  the  Patriot  party  appointed  Sir 
Edwin  Sandys,  Sir  Edward  Harwood,  John 
Smyth  of  Nibley,  John  White  (who  afterwards 
drafted  the  Massachusetts  charter),  William  Ber- 
block,  Anthony  Withers,  Rev.  Patrick  Copeland, 
John  Ferrar,  and  Nicholas  Ferrar  as  a  special 
committee  for  perfecting  the  various  writings 
which  they  intended  to  submit  in  defense  of  our 
charter  rights,  etc.  On  April  28th,  the  crown 
appointed  a  special  commission  to  consider  the 
Virginia  case,  with  Sir  William  Jones,  who  had 
been  chief  justice  of  the  King's  Bench  in  Ire- 
land, at  the  head  of  it.  This  commission  sat  in 
this  case  for  many  months,  and  back  of  it  was 
James  I.  and  his  Privy  Council. 

John  Ferrar  says  :  "  The  Privy  Council,  find- 
ing that  the  company  were  still  resolved  not 
to  part  with  their  patent  or  with  the  liberty 
which  they  thereby  had  to  govern  their  own 
affairs,  now  took  a  more  severe  and  not  less  un- 
just course.     They  confined  Lord  Southampton 


4G  THE  CONTINUED  CONTEST 

[early  in  May,  1623]  to  his  house,  so  that  he 
iiii^rht  not  come  to  the  Virginia  courts,  of  which 
he  was  the  legal  governor.  But  this  only  made 
the  company  more  resolute  in  their  own  defense. 
They  then  [on  May  23d]  ordered  Sir  Edwin 
Sandys  [Lord  Cavendish,  the  governor  of  the 
Bermuda  Islands  Company,  Nicholas  and  John 
Ferrar]  into  a  similar  confinement.  But  this 
step  in  no  degree  abated  the  resolution  of  the 
company  "  to  defend  their  charter  rights. 

At  the  Easter  Virginia  Court,  May  24,  1623, 
"  the  Lords,  under  the  influence  of  Gondomar, 
strongly  pressed  the  company  to  give  up  their 
patent ;  "  but  they  would  not.  All  of  the  lead- 
ing managers  of  the  body  were  now  under  arrest, 
and  as  this  was  the  court  at  which  their  annual 
elections  were  usually  held  the  crown  may  have 
felt  that  it  "  held  the  whip  handle ; "  but  the 
Patriots,  in  order  to  hold  on  to  their  old  officers 
(now  prisoners),  and  to  avoid  as  much  as  possi- 
ble an  open  rupture  with  the  crown,  determined 
to  defer  the  annual  election  to  the  Trinity  term. 
James  I.  was  thus  again  foiled  in  another  at- 
tempt to  interfere  with  their  freedom  of  elec- 
tion. The  Ferrars  were  liberated  in  a  few  days  ; 
but  Southampton,  Cavendish,  and  Sandys  were 
not. 

On  May  26th,  Sir  Nathaniel  Rich,  who  was  then 
afhllating  with  the  Court  party,  had  a  long  in- 
terview with  Captain  John  Bargrave  in  the  great 


THE  CONTINUED  CONTEST  47 

chamber  of  the  Earl  of  Warwick's  house  in  Lon- 
don. Bargrave  said  that  "  by  his  long  acquaint- 
ance with  Sandys  and  his  wayes  he  was  induced 
verilie  to  believe  that  there  was  not  any  man  in 
the  world  that  carried  a  more  malitious  heart  to 
the  government  of  a  Monarchic,  than  Sir  Edwin 
Sandys  did."  Continuing,  he  said  in  effect  that 
'  Sandys  had  told  him  his  purpose  was  to  erect 
a  free  popular  state  in  Virginia,  in  which  the  in- 
habitants should  have  no  government  put  upon 
them  but  by  their  own  consent.'  This  evidence 
of  Bargrave's  as  to  the  political  features  of  the 
case  was  very  strong,  because  he  was  a  friend  of 
Sandys  on  business  lines,  and  was  then  acting  in 
consort  with  him  in  his  suits  against  Sir  Thomas 
Smith.  Rich  made  notes  of  this  interview,  which 
he  gave  in  to  the  king's  commissioners,  who  were 
then  considering  the  case. 

Sandys  and  Southampton  being  under  arrest, 
John  Ferrar  says  that  the  burthen  of  defending 
our  charter  rights  before  this  commission  and 
the  Privy  Council  fell  upon  Nicholas  Ferrar. 
And  when  James  Marquess  of  Hamilton  and 
William  Herbert  Earl  of  Pembroke  visited 
Sandys  and  Southampton  in  their  confinement, 
these  lords  informed  them  of  these  proceedings, 
saying :  "  That  Nicholas  Ferrar,  though  now 
left  as  it  were  alone,  was  too  hard  for  all  his  op- 
posers.  But,  continued  they,  your  enemies  will 
prevail  at  last ;  for  let  the  Company  do  what 


48  THE  CONTINUED  CONTEST 

they  can,  in  open  defiance  of  honour,  and  jus- 
tice, it  is  absohitely  determined  at  all  events  to 
take  a-vvay  your  patent." 

The  Trinity  Virginia  Court  met  on  July  5, 
1623 ;  the  treasurers  were  still  under  arrest, 
the  company  would  not  elect  others  to  their 
places,  and  in  order  to  hold  on  to  their  old  offi- 
cers and  to  avoid  an  open  rupture  with  the 
crown,  now  deferred  the  election  to  the  Michael- 
mas term.  James  I.  seems  to  have  been  deter- 
mined, if  the  patriotic  body  would  elect  none  of 
those  selected  by  himself,  that  they  should  have 
no  presiding  officials  at  all. 

The  crown  had  placed  the  leaders  of  the 
Patriot  party  under  arrest,  and  had  hampered 
that  party  in  every  way  while  the  commissioners 
were  considering  their  case.  After  the  com- 
missioners had  collected  such  evidences  as  the 
king  desired,  they  made  their  first  report  in 
July,  1623 :  —  to  the  purport  *  that  if  his 
Majesty's  first  charter  of  April,  1606,  and  his 
Majesty's  most  prudent  and  princely  form  of 
government  of  1606-1609,  by  thirteen  council- 
lors in  Virginia  all  appointed  by  his  Majesty, 
had  been  pursued,  much  better  effects  would  have 
been  produced  than  had  been  by  the  alteration 
thereof  under  the  charters  to  a  body  politic  into 
80  popular  a  course,'  etc.  The  report  was  for 
the  purpose  of  justifying  James  I.  "  out  of  his 
great  wisdom  and  depth  to  judgment  to  resume 


SECOND  APPEAL  TO  PARLIAMENT  49 

the  government,  and  to  reduce  that  popular  form 
so  as  to  make  it  agree  with  the  monarchical  form 
which  was  held  in  the  rest  of  his  Royall  Mon- 
archie." 


CHAPTER   IX 

THE    SECOND     EFFORT     TO    PROTECT     OUR     CHAR- 
TER   RIGHTS   BY   ACT    OF   PARLIAMENT 

After  the  failure  of  the  Spanish  match,  in  the 
autumn  of  1623,  James  I.  evidently  altered  the 
private  purpose,  which  the  Patriots  said  he  had, 
of  surrendering  Virginia  to  Spain,  but  became 
more  determined  than  ever  to  annul  our  charter 
rights,  in  order  to  take  the  country  from  the 
body  which  had  secured  it  at  the  expense  of 
their  own  blood  and  treasure  without  assistance 
from  the  crown,  to  attach  it  absolutely  to  the 
crown,  and  to  resume  the  government  himself. 

On  October  30th,  the  company  was  required 
by  the  crown  to  take  a  final  vote  on  surrendering 
their  charter  rights  voluntarily,  and,  regardless 
of  the  royal  influence,  a  large  majority  of  those 
present  were  opposed  to  doing  so.  Two  of  the 
old  representatives  of  James  I.  in  Virginia  during 
1607-1609  (Captains  John  Martin  and  John 
Smith)  were  present,  and  both  of  them  wished 
the  king  to  resume  the  business. 

Sir  Edwin  Sandys  had  been  under  arrest  nearly 


50  SECOND  APPEAL  TO  PARLIAMENT 

the  whole  time  since  May,  —  while  this  case  was 
being  considered  by  the  crown,  —  and  James  I., 
in  order  to  get  him  entirely  out  of  his  way,  had 
determined  in  December  to  send  him  as  one  of  a 
special  commission  to  Ireland ;  but  a  Parliament 
having  been  decided  on,  and  Sandys  being  elected 
a  member  from  Kent,  the  king  was  foiled,  as  it 
was  deemed  unwise  to  arouse  the  wrath  of  Parlia- 
ment by  taking  him  away  from  his  seat ;  so  he 
was  finally  released  from  confinement,  and  he  sat 
in  the  fourth  Parliament  of  James  I.  from  Feb- 
ruary 22, 1624,  to  the  death  of  the  king  on  April 
6,  1625.' 

On  January  24,  1624,  the  Virginia  Court  re- 
solved not  to  continue  the  prosecution  of  their 
case  before  the  crown  officials,  the  Privy  Coun- 
cil, and  courts,  but  "  to  reserve  all  to  the  Parlia- 
ment now  at  hand  ; "  and  it  was  before  the  last 
Parliament  of  James  I.  that  our  original  body 
politic  made  their  last  st.^.nd  as  an  independent 
corporation  in  defense  of  our  original  charter 
rights.  The  Patriot  party  was  nuinerously  and 
well  represented  in  this  Parliament.  After  it 
met,  on  February  22,  1624,  Sir  Edwin  Sandys 
and  Nicholas  Ferrar  (M.  P.  for  Lymington)  at 
once  strengthened  their  position  by  taking  sides 
with  Prince  Charles  and  the  Duke  of  Bucking- 
ham (who  had  visited  Spain  as  Tom  and  John 
Smith),  the  then  "rising  stars,"  in  their  case 
against  Lionel  Cranfield  Earl  of  Middlesex,  the 


SECOND   APPEAL  TO   PARLIAMENT  51 

old  opponent  of  Sandys  and  Ferrar  in  the  Vir- 
ginia business.  Then,  on  May  6th,  Sandys, 
Ferrar,  and  "those  others  of  the  Virginia  Coun- 
cil that  were  also  members  of  the  Honourable 
House  of  Parliament,"  in  the  name  of  the  Vir- 
ginia Corporation,  presented  a  petition  "  To  the 
Honourable  House  of  Commons  assembled  in 
Parliament."  This  petition,  after  showing  the 
many  advantages  arising  and  likely  to  arise  from 
the  colony,  states  that  disorders  have  arisen 
which  the  petitioners  were  not  able  to  rectify 
"without  higher  assistance,"  and  "for  the  dis- 
charge of  the  trust  reposed  in  them  they  now 
presented  to  this  present  Parliament  this  child  of 
the  kingdom  [Virginia]  exposed  as  in  the  wil- 
derness to  extreme  danger,  and  as  it  were  faint- 
ing and  laboring  for  life.  And  they  pray  the 
House  to  hear  their  grievances ;  "  —  which  the 
House  was  willing  to  do,  and  a  committee  was 
appointed  to  hear  the  case.  But  before  the 
matter  was  concluded  James  I.  wrote  (May  8th) 
"  to  our  House  of  Commons  not  to  trouble  them- 
selves with  this  petition,"  as  he  intended  to  settle 
the  matter  himself  with  the  aid  of  his  Privy  Coun- 
cil, and  *  this  was  assented  to  by  a  general  silence 
in  the  House,  but  not  without  some  soft  mutter- 
ings.'  As  their  contest  was  really  with  the  crown, 
and  not  with  the  Sir  Thomas  Smith  party,  as,  for 
obvious  reasons,  they  had  pretended,  and  as  their 
hopes  had  been  dependent  on  the  Commons,  the 


62        THE  CHARTERS  ANNULLED 

Patriot  party  in  the  Virginia  body  politic  must 
have  now  felt  that  their  cause  was  for  the  pre- 
sent hopeless ;  yet  they  were  not  only  unwilling 
to  surrender  our  charter  rights  voluntarily,  but 
they  were  not  wiUing  to  surrender  them  at  all. 

CHAPTER  X 

THE  CHARTERS  TO  THE  ORIGINAL  OF  OUR  BODY 
POLITIC  ANNULLED  BY  THE  CROWN 

On  November  3,  1623,  the  Privy  Council  in 
England  appointed  Captain  John  Harvey,  John 
Pory,  Abraham  Piersey,  and  Samuel  Matthews^ 
commissioners  in  Virginia  to  consider  and  make 
report  on  the  condition  of  the  colony.  Harvey 
and  Pory  arrived  at  Jamestown  on  March  4, 1624, 
and  after  considering  the  case,  sent  their  reports 
to  England  by  Pory  early  in  May  following.  The 
Patriot  party  in  Virginia  had  sent  Mr.  John 
Pountis  as  their  agent,  with  documents  to  offset 
these  reports,  about  a  week  before,  and  this  was 
probably  the  first  special  mission  sent  to  England 
from  the  colony  in  defense  of  our  charter  rights. 
"  Mr.  Pountis,  the  messenger  of  the  General 
Assemblie  in  Virginia,"  died  en  route  at  sea  in 
June,  1624.  Mr.  Pory,  the  messenger  of  the 
royal  commission,  arrived  safely,  and  gave  in 
their  reports  about  the  middle  of  June.     The 

'  John  Jeilersoa  was  also  appoiuted,  but  he  did  not  act. 


THE  CHARTERS  ANNULLED  53 

royal  commission  in  England  then,  regardless  o£ 
the  protests  of  the  Virginia  courts  in  England 
and  of  the  General  Assembly  and  planters  in  Vir- 
ginia, made  theii'  final  reports  justifying  the  king 
in  having  the  charter  of  our  original  body  politic 
annulled  and  in  resuming  the  government  him- 
self. 

James  I.  then  had  the  charter  overthrown,  on 
June  26, 1624,  by  a  quo  ivarranto  ^  in  the  Court 
of  the  King's  Bench  by  Sir  James  Ley,  who  had 
formerly  served  him  as  a  commissioner  in  Ire- 
land ;  but  the  immortal  principles  which  inspired 
the  body  had  then  been  planted  in  America.  The 
seed  had  germinated  in  our  sacred  soil,  and  the 
tender  plant  was  growing  strong  in  our  free  air. 

The  Patriot  party  was  very  severe  in  denounc- 
ing James  I.  in  their  courts  and  writings  for  his 
"  despotic  violation  of  honour  and  of  justice  "  in 
these  premises,  and  that  the  whole  proceeding  of 
the  Court  party  was  a  piece  of  very  dishonorable 
work  there  can  be  now  no  question ;  but  from 
the  imperial  point  of  view  it  must  have  seemed 
to  be  a  royal  duty  to  resort  to  every  possible 
means  available  for  destroying  forever,  "  root 
and  branch,"  every  idea  of  the  popular  political 
course  of  government  designed  for  the  New 
"World  by  the  Patriots. 

In  reference  to  the  quo  warranto  case,  John 

1  Smith  called  it  "A  Corante."  —  Generall  Historie,  p.  168, 
Arber's  edition  of  Smith's  Works,  p.  621. 


64        THE  CHARTERS  ANNULLED 

Ferrar  said  that  Attorney  -  General  Coventry 
brought  the  plea  against  the  company's  charter, 
''  That  it  was  in  general  an  unlimited  vast  patent. 
In  particular,  the  main  inconvenience  was  that, 
by  the  words  of  the  charter,  the  company  had  a 
power  given  them  to  carry  away  and  transport  to 
Virginia  as  many  o£  the  king's  loving  subjects  as 
were  desirous  to  go  thither.  And  consequently, 
by  exercising  this  liberty,  they  may  in  the  end 
carry  away  all  the  king's  subjects  into  a  foreign 
land,"  etc.  Additional  light  is  thrown  on  this 
matter  by  Bargrave,  Wodenoth,  and  others. 

If  we  will  turn  the  political  hght  on  these 
charters  it  will  be  seen  that  Attorney-General 
Coventry  understood  them  correctly.^  They  con- 
veyed to  a  body  politic  unlimited  in  number,  a 
corporation  unlimited  in  time,  a  vast  territory  in 
perpetuity,  and  authorized  that  body  to  plant 
this  territory,  not  only  with  "as  many  of  the 
king's  loving  subjects  as  were  desirous  to  go 
thither,"  but  also  with  *  strangers  and  aliens,  born 
in  any  part  beyond  the  seas  wheresoever,  being 
in  amity  with  the  Enghsh.'  And  among  the 
singular  freedoms,  liberties,  franchises,  and  privi- 
leges granted  to  the  members  of  this  body  pohtic 
was  the  right  to  govern  themselves  —  to  make 
laws  and  ordinances  —  so  always  as  the  same  be 
not  contrary  to  the  laws  of  England  as  construed 
in  the  most  favorable  manner  for  that  body. 

*  See  Part  V.  chapters  i.,  ii.,  and  iii. 


THE  CHARTERS  ANNULLED  55 

The  crown  already  saw  "  the  handwriting  on 
the  wall,"  and  felt  that,  unless  heroic  action  was 
promptly  taken  against  a  popular  course  of  gov- 
ernment in  America,  the  colonies  would  become 
a  place  of  refuge  from  royal  tyranny,  and  would 
finally  shake  off  the  yoke  of  the  mother  country 
and  erect  an  entirely  independent  nation.  And 
the  subsequent  history  of  the  colonies  is  an  evi- 
dence that  the  crown  never  lost  sight  of  that 
fear  until  it  lost  the  colonies. 

After  the  quo  warranto  case  had  been  de- 
cided according  to  his  desire,  James  I.  at  once 
turned  his  attention  to  designing  a  plan  of  gov- 
ernment of  his  own  for  the  colonies  in  America, 
with  the  aid  of  Oliver  St.  John  Viscount  Grand- 
ison,  George  Lord  Carew,  and  Arthur  Lord 
Chichester,  who  had  previously  assisted  him  in 
forming  his  plan  of  government  for  Ireland; 
and  if  he  had  lived  to  put  into  effect  his  plan  of 
government  for  America,  the  result  might  have 
been  the  same  in  this  country  as  it  has  been  in 
Ireland.  Or,  if  Gondomar's  advice  continued 
to  obtain  with  him,  the  Spanish  plan  of  ruling 
South  America  might  have  been  repeated  in 
North  America.  Or,  if  he  had  restored  his 
original  form  of  government  of  1606-1609, 
under  the  presidency  of  his  original  loyal  repre- 
sentative, it  might  have  resulted  in  failure  as  it 
had  previously  done.  But  no  one  can  really  know 
what  would  have  been  the  result  if  the  ideas  of 


66  THE  CHARTERS  ANNULLED 

James  I.  and  his  councilors  had  been  completely 
carried  out ;  because  Providence  has  always  pro- 
tected the  American  talisman.  James  I.  died 
suddenly  on  April  6,  1625,  before  his  plans  for 
destroying  it  had  been  consummated,  and  it 
came  to  pass  that  the  colony  virtually  continued 
under  the  poHtical  principles  —  the  vis  vitce  — 
of  the  primitive  body  politic  of  this  nation. 


PART   II 

An  outline  of  the  effort  of  the  Court  party  in  England  to 
obliterate  the  true  history  of  the  origin  of  this  nation  ;  show- 
ing how  a  great  historic  wrong  was  done  our  patriotic  found- 
ers by  James  I.,  his  commissioned  officials,  and  licensed  his- 
torians. 


THE  CROWN  CONFISCATES  EVIDENCES       69 


CHAPTER  I 

THE     CROWN     CONFISCATES     THE     EVIDENCES     OF 
THE   BODY    POLITIC 

James  I.  not  only  determined  to  deprive  the 
body  politic  of  the  political  rights  which  he  had 
granted  under  the  Great  Seal  of  England  in  per- 
petuity, but  he  also  resolved  to  suppress  (their 
historic  rights)  the  real  history  of  their  great 
reform  movement. 

We  have  considered  the  means  resorted  to  for 
robbing  the  original  of  our  body  politic  of  our 
charter  rights.  We  have  now  to  consider  the 
means  adopted  for  robbing  our  founders  of  the 
honors  due  them  in  history;  for  suppressing 
the  facts,  and  for  impressing  on  the  public  false 
ideas  of  this  great  liberalizing  movement. 

The  repressive  laws  then  shackling  the  press 
would  of  themselves  have  naturally  worked  the 
loss  or  scattering  of  much  that  was  disapproved 
by  the  crown  in  the  lapse  of  years  without 
an  intentional  preservation  of  evidence  for  one 
party  and  the  destruction  of  the  evidence  for 
the  other  side ;  but  James  I.  was  not  the  king 
to  leave  such  matters  to  such  chances,  or  to 
trust  solely  to  the  ordinary  royal  control  over 
evidence.      Probably   no   king   was   ever   more 


GO      THE  CROWN  CONFISCATES  EVIDENCES 

determined  to  exercise  "  the  divine  right,"  for- 
merly claimed  by  all  kings,  for  making  the  his- 
toric statements  controlled  by  them  conform  to 
their  purposes,  than  James  I.  The  real  his- 
tory of  his  part  in  the  Gowrie  Conspiracy  of 
IGOO  and  in  the  Gunpowder  Plot  of  1605  has 
never  been  satisfactorily  unraveled.  But  his 
subtle  diplomacy  in  matters  of  this  kind  was 
most  effectually  illustrated  in  his  determination 
to  make  the  plantations  in  America  lastmg  mon- 
uments of  his  own  kingly  ideas,  rather  than  of 
the  popular  ideas  of  "  his  greatest  enemy,"  Sir 
Edwin  Sandys,  and  in  the  execution  of  his  pur- 
pose to  consign  to  oblivion  all  that  pertained  to 
the  political  plans  of  the  Patriots  and  to  their 
reform  movement.  We  have  a  peculiarly  strong 
illustration  of  the  vigor  of  his  purpose  in  these 
premises  in  his  act  on  January  9,  1622,  when,  in 
order  to  destroy  the  record  of  a  popular  political 
idea,  he  was  guilty  of  the  historic  crime  of  tear- 
ing out  with  his  own  royal  hands  the  page  from 
the  Commons  Journal  on  which  was  written  the 
celebrated  protest  of  the  Commons  (in  sequence 
to  the  arrest  of  Sandys  in  June,  1621)  asserting 
"  that  they  had,  and  of  right  ought  to  have, 
freedom  of  speech,"  etc.  To  securing  these  ob- 
jects —  to  committing  this  great  historic  wrong 
—  James  I.  devoted  ^'  his  ffreat  wisdom  and 
depth  of  judgment,"  with  the  aid  of  the  Court 
party.  Privy  Council,  special  commissioners,  royal 


THE   CROWN  CONFISCATES  EVIDENCES       61 

courts,  licensed  historians,  personal  advisers,  dis- 
satisfied and  royalist  members  of  the  Virginia 
Corporation,  for  a  large  portion  of  the  very- 
last  years  of  his  life  and  reign.  And  conse- 
quently even  the  Gowrie  Conspiracy  and  the 
Gunpowder  Plot  have  been  better  understood  by 
historians  than  has  the  reform  movement  under 
■which  this  nation  was  founded. 

The  crown  had  a  legitimate  or  legal  right  to 
control  the  press,  the  printed  evidences,  and  much 
of  the  manuscript  evidence  —  such  as  pertained 
to  the  acts  of  the  crown,  the  Privy  Council, 
royal  courts,  commissions,  etc.,  etc.  It  is  now 
hard  to  form  even  an  approximate  estimate  as  to 
how  much  there  was  originally  of  the  evidence 
legally  under  the  control  of  the  crown  ;  but 
there  was  evidently  very  much  of  it,  —  some  of 
a  reliable  character  and  some  of  a  partisan  or 
unreliable  character ;  some  complete  documents, 
others  mere  abstracts.  But  it  was  all  kept  under 
lock  and  key,  "  tied  with  red-tape,"  and  none  of 
it  was  available  to  the  historian  for  many  gen- 
erations, prior  to  which  time  much  had  been 
destroyed  intentionally  or  unintentionally,  and 
some  yielding  to  the  natural  ravages  of  time  had 
crumbled  to  decay. 

It  is  only  necessary  to  give  an  outline  of  the 
evidences  in  print  and  manuscript,  originally 
issued  by  or  under  the  control  of  the  Virginia 
Corporation.    Prior  to  the  opening  of  the  press 


62       THE  CROWN  CONFISCATES  EVIDENCES 

to  their  opponents  in  1612,  the  managers  of  the 
business  had  pubhshed  about  twenty  tracts, 
broadsides,  and  circular  letters.  After  that  their 
patronage  of  the  press  was  not  so  free.  The 
custom  of  reading  at  the  annual  Hilary  term  of 
the  Viro-inia  Quarter  Court  "  a  declaration  of  the 
present  state  of  the  colony  "  was  continued  dur- 
ino-  1G13-1617,  which  declaration,  or  an  abstract 
from  it,  was  published  each  year,  and  a  few 
lottery  broadsides  and  circular  letters  were  also 
printed ;  but  I  cannot  find  that  anything  at  all 
was  published  by  the  managers  in  1618  or  1619, 
while  the  new  order  of  government  was  being 
quietly  inaugurated  in  Virginia.  Under  the 
Sandys-Southampton  administration,  "  the  trea- 
surer was  required  in  the  beginning  of  the  court 
[usually  the  Easter  Quarter  Court]  at  the  giving 
up  of  his  office  to  declare  by  word  or  writing 
the  present  estate  of  the  colonic  and  planters  in 
Virginia,  and  to  deliver  in  to  the  court  a  Booke 
of  his  accounts  for  the  year  past,  examined  and 
approved  under  the  auditors  hands  :  Declaring 
withall  the  present  estate  of  the  cash."  A  portion 
of  this  report,  including  'A  Note  of  the  shipping, 
men,  provisions,  etc.,  that  had  been  sent  to  Vir- 
ginia by  the  said  Treasurer  during  his  preced- 
ing year  in  office,'  was  published  in  1620,  1621, 
and  1622.  Besides  these  a  good  many  other 
things  were  printed  in  1620  and  a  few  in  1622 ; 
but  the  printing  press  was  not  available  to  the 


THE  CROWN  CONFISCATES  EVIDENCES       63 

managers  in  the  years  1623  and  1624  when  the 
great  struggle  over  our  charter  rights  was  going 
on,  and  they  puhlished  nothing  that  I  can  find 
in  those  years.  There  were  probably  over  fifty 
imprints  —  tracts,  broadsides,  circulars,  etc.,  li- 
censed and  not  licensed,  long  and  short  —  pub- 
lished by  the  managers  in  the  whole  period  of 
1609-1624.  These  publications,  issued  in  the 
interest  of  the  enterprise,  are  not  expected  to 
give  political  or  other  information  which  might 
injure  it;  yet  they  reveal  to  us  some  of  the 
lines  along  which  the  managers  worked,  some  of 
the  difficulties  which  they  had  to  meet,  some  of 
their  objects  or  ideas  of  the  present  and  hopes 
for  the  future,  and  along  these  lines  they  must 
be  regarded  as  authentic  evidence  of  the  liighest 
value.  At  the  same  time  it  must  be  remembered 
that  the  crown  had  a  legal  control  over  the  press 
which  printed  them. 

The  manuscript  records  of  the  body  politic 
were  regularly  kept,  were  voluminous  and  valua- 
ble. The  treasurers,  auditors,  committees,  hus- 
bands, etc.,  all  kept  separate  sets  of  books. 
The  bookkeeper  kept  the  books  of  the  treasurer 
and  the  books  of  the  auditors.  The  secretary 
kept  the  books  of  the  corporation  courts,  the 
books  of  the  committeemen,  etc.,  including : 
FirsU  the  books  containing  letters,  orders,  etc., 
from  the  king,  Privy  Council,  and  court  officials 
to  the  company  officials,  and  ditto  from  the  com- 


ai       THE  CROWN   CONFISCATES  EVIDENCES 

pany  officials  to  the  crown  officials  ;  second,  the 
books  of  laws,  standing  orders,  and  matters  of 
that  character ;  third,  the  books  containing  the 
charters  from  the  crown,  the  charters  and  inden- 
tures from  the  corporation,  the  public  letters  to 
and  from  Virginia,  etc. ;  fourth,  the  books  of  the 
acts  of  the  general  courts ;  ffth,  the  books  of 
the  acts  of  the  committees,  including  invoices  of 
goods,  etc.,  sent  to  and  received  from  Virginia  ; 
and,  sixth,  the  books  containing  the  names  of  the 
adventurers  and  their  shares  of  land,  the  names 
of  all  planters  in  Virginia  upon  the  public  as  well 
as  upon  private  plantations  and  their  shares  of 
land.  There  were  also  register  books,  in  which 
the  name,  age,  condition,  previous  residence,  etc., 
of  all  who  went  to  Virginia  as  planters  was  regis- 
tered. The  husband  kept  his  own  books  regard- 
ing every  voyage  to  and  from  Virginia.  There 
were  also  many  other  writings,  documents,  etc., 
of  an  important  character  not  kept  in  books,  all 
of  which  were  carefully  kept  under  the  secretary's 
charge  in  the  company's  chest  of  evidences. 
And,  of  course,  there  was  much  evidence,  of  a 
non-official  but  reliable  character,  in  the  hands 
of  many  members  of  the  corporation  not  kept  in 
the  chest  of  evidences.  I  believe  that  enough 
is  now  known  of  these  original  manuscript  evi- 
dences of  the  Virginia  Corporation  to  justify  es- 
timating the  volume  at  over  seven  million  words. 
The  crown,  through  the  medium  of  the  Star 


THE  CROWN   CONFISCATES   EVIDENCES       G5 

Chamber,  the  High  Commission,  and  the  censors 
o£  the  press,  had  a  legal  control  over  publications, 
and  through  the  Privy  Council  and  royal  officials 
a  legitimate  control  of  much  of  the  manuscript 
evidence.  But  James  I.  was  also  determined  to 
confiscate  this  mass  of  the  corporation's  evidence 
over  which  he  had  no  legal  control,  and  over 
which  I  do  not  know  that  the  annulling  of  the 
charter  to  the  body  politic  gave  him  a  legitimate 
control.  The  actual  confiscation  of  this  evidence 
began  on  or  before  May  3,  1623,  for  the  Vir- 
ginia Court  of  May  24th  complained  that  the 
Lords  of  his  Majesty's  Privy  Council  had  seques- 
tered their  court  books  out  of  the  company's  hands 
three  weeks  before.  On  May  25th,  the  royal  com- 
missioners ordered  the  Virginia  and  the  Somers 
Islands  companies  to  bring  before  them  to  the  in- 
quest house  (where  they  held  their  inquisitions), 
next  adjoining  to  St.  Andrew's  Church  in  Hol- 
born,  on  May  27th  next,  all  writings  of  all  sorts 
concerning  the  said  companies.  As  the  Privy 
Council  had  taken  the  precaution  to  place  the 
presiding  officers  of  both  corporations  under  ar- 
rest while  this  sequestration  of  their  evidences 
was  going  on,  this  order  of  the  commissioners 
was  addressed  to  "  Edward  Collingwood,  secretary 
of  the  Company  of  Virginia."  ^ 

In  the  autimin  of  1623  the  crown  appointed 

*  For  Captain  John  Smith's  account  of  his  part  in  these  pro- 
ceedings, see  The  Generall  Historie,  pp.  162-168. 


CG       THE  CROWN  CONFISCATES  EVIDENCES 

Captain  John  Harvey  and  John  Pory  to  go  to 
Vhginia  and  to  act  with  several  planters  there 
as  commissioners  in  Virginia,  ostensibly  for  the 
purpose  of  examining  into  the  state  of  the  plan- 
tations, '  to  make  report  on  the  misgovernment 
thereof,  and  to  suggest  the  likeliest  ways  to  be 
put  in  practice  for  the  better  governing  of  the 
same  ; '  but  really,  as  Lionel  Cranfield  Earl  of 
Middlesex  expressed  it  —  'In  order  that  we 
[the  Court  party]  might  have  some  true  grounds 
to  work  upon.'  That  is,  in  plain  English,  the 
royal  commissioners  in  England  and  in  Virginia 
were  appointed  for  the  purpose  of  finding  rea- 
sons, evidences,  to  justify  the  king  before  the 
people  in  annulling  the  popular  charters,  and  in 
resuming  the  government  himself,  as  he  had  al- 
ready made  up  his  mind  to  do.  "  There  was  one 
law  of  the  land,  but  another  law  of  the  king's 
commissions."  They  collected  such  evidences  as 
answered  their  purpose,  and  made  their  reports 
—  regardless  of  the  protests  of  the  Virginia 
courts  in  England  and  of  the  General  Assembly 
in  Virginia  —  in  accordance  with  the  wishes  of 
the  crown. 

Captain  John  Harvey  and  Mr.  John  Pory  of 
the  commission  in  Virginia  were  in  the  service 
of  James  I.  Pory  had  been  secretary  in  Vir- 
ginia, but  at  the  election  of  June,  1621,  was  de- 
feated by  Christopher  Davison,  and  afterwards 
went  over  to  the  Court  party.     On  July  30, 1624, 


THE  CROWN  CONFISCATES  EVIDENCES       67 

'  the  crown  paid  him  £100  in  discharge  of  his 
expenses,  and  £50  as  a  reward  for  his  services 
when  employed  in  Virginia  about  the  king's 
special  affairs.'  James  I.  expended  much  more 
of  his  revenue  in  his  effort  to  have  evidences  to 
conform  with  his  wishes,  in  founding  history  to 
suit  his  ideas,  and  in  committing  this  historic 
wrong,  than  he  did  on  the  actual  founding  of 
Virgdnia. 

The  commissioners  continued  to  confiscate  the 
company's  evidences  ^  at  every  opportunity,  under 
various  pretensions,  until  the  Virginia  charter 
was  "  overthrown  "  on  June  26,  1624,  by  a  quo 
warranto  issued  by  Su-  James  Ley,^  Lord  Chief 
Justice  of  the  King's  Bench  ;  after  which  James  I. 
felt  more  free  to  act  in  the  matter  without  pre- 
text or  subterfuge.  On  July  4th  he  appointed 
a  special  commission  to  aid  him  in  the  premises, 
composed  of  sixteen  men,  the  large  majority 
being  crown  of&cials  or  members  of  the  Court 
party ;  and  one  of  their  first  acts  was  to  order 
Mr.  Nicholas  Ferrar,  the  deputy  of  the  Virginia 
Corporation,  to  bring  to  them  many  of  the  com- 
pany's evidences.   On  July  25th  James  I.  enlarged 

1  See  The  First  Republic  in  America,  pp.  532,  etc. 

^  He  was  created  Lord  Treasurer  on  December  20,  1624  ; 
Lord  Ley  of  Ley,  County  Devon,  December  31,  1624  ;  advanced 
to  the  Earldom  of  Marlborough  in  May,  1625,  and  soon  after 
made  Lord  President  of  the  Privy  Council,  all  for  services  ren- 
dered the  crown.  Sir  William  Jones,  the  head  of  the  king's 
Virginia  Commission  of  1623-1624,  was  advanced  to  the  King's 
Bench,  October  17,  1624. 


G8       THE    CROWN   CONFISCATES  EVIDENCES 

the  powers  of  this  commission,  added  thereto 
forty  new  members,  mostly  of  the  Court  party, 
and  gave  them  especial  royal  orders,  ^  to  take 
into  their  hands  and  to  keep  All  Bookes,  orders. 
Letters,  Advices,  and  other  writings  and  things 
in  anywise  concerning  the  colony  and  plantation 
of  Viririnia,  in  whose  hands  soever  the  same 
be.'  And  all  persons  were  required  by  the  crown 
to  dehver  these  evidences  to  these  commissioners, 
while  they  were  required  by  James  I.  to  be  dili- 
jrent  in  securing^  them. 

It  is  not  to  be  supposed  that  anything  in 
manuscript  or  print  would  have  been  preserved 
under  the  auspices  of  the  crown  which  was  not 
favorable  to  the  purposes  of  the  crown,  and  if 
the  royal  officials  collected  any  evidence  which 
did  not  conform  to  the  purposes  of  the  crown,  it 
was  probably  collected  in  order  to  destroy  it. 
The  evidences  still  preserved  which  were  ob- 
tained by  the  royal  commissioners  consist  of  ex- 
tracts made  in  the  interest  of  the  royal  purposes 
from  documents  which  have  not  been  found 
(having  been  probably  destroyed  at  that  time), 
and  of  complete  papers  in  justification  of  those 
purposes.  There  cannot  now  be  any  reasonable 
doubt  that  James  I.  left  no  stone  unturned  in  the 
effort  to  find  and  to  have  destroyed  all  evidences 
which  were  favorable  to  the  popular  course  of 
government.  And  all  the  numerous  important 
original  manuscript  evidences  of  the  body  politic 


EFFORT  TO   PRESERVE  THE  EVIDENCES        69 

were  confiscated  by  the  crown,  with  the  manifest 
purpose  of  suppressing  the  facts  and  making  it 
impossible  for  the  truth  regarding  this  reform 
movement  ever  to  be  known,  for  not  one  of  these 
orierinal  documents  has  been  found.  And  "  cen- 
sored  histories"  were  licensed,  disseminating 
false  ideas,  which,  under  the  control  of  the  crown, 
remained  for  generations  the  only  available  evi- 
dences in  the  premises. 

Besides  the  official  publications  of  the  crown 
and  of  the  managers,  there  were  printed  various 
other  books,  sermons,  tracts,  etc.,  by  members  of 
the  corporation  and  by  outsiders,  containing 
more  or  less  matter  relative  to  the  colony  in  Vir- 
ginia. But  as  these  publications  had  to  conform 
to  the  purposes  of  the  censors  of  the  press,  little 
information  of  a  political  or  strictly  reliable  his- 
torical character  is  given  in  them. 


CHAPTER  II 

THE    EFFORT     OF     THE     PATRIOTS     TO     PRESERVE 
AUTHENTIC    COPIES    OF    THEIR    EVIDENCES 

While  the  Court  party  had  every  advantage 
in  being  able  to  destroy  evidences  unfavorable  to 
their  purposes  and  for  disseminating  such  as 
were  favorable,  the  Patriot  party  was  at  every  dis- 
advantage. Even  before  the  open  opposition  of 
the  crown  began  there  had  been  need  for  discre- 


70        EFFORT  TO  PRESERVE  THE  EVIDENCES 

tion,  not  only  on  account  of  the  political  condi- 
tions, but  also  because  it  would  have  been  a 
serious  blow  to  the  enterprise  for  many  years  for 
many  of  the  true  obstacles  to  have  been  pub- 
licly acknowledged  by  the  managers.  Hence 
they  had  all  along  been  obliged  to  bear  in  silence 
adverse  criticism  and  charges  of  mismanagement 
as  well  as  of  "  misgovernment."  And  although 
they  patronized  the  press  liberally  during  1609- 
1612,  the  freedom  of  the  press  was  never  theirs ; 
whatever  they  published  was  always  hable  to 
royal  inspection  —  to  be  censored,  garbled,  or 
destroyed.  And  after  the  crown  resolved  to 
confiscate  their  evidences,  they  really  had  no 
safe  or  satisfactory  way  of  preserving  them. 
The  only  way  was  by  stealth,  and  fortunately 
for  the  truth,  which  is  essential  to  history,  they 
made  determined  efforts  to  preserve  their  records 
in  this  way.  Some  were  preserved  by  sending 
them  to  Virginia  at  once,  others  by  keeping 
them  privately  in  England,  and  some  of  these 
were  at  a  later  day  purchased  by  Virginians  and 
brought  to  Virginia  for  safe  keeping. 

The  Virginia  Court,  on  May  27,  1623,  ap- 
pointed a  committee  composed  of  Sir  Robert 
Killigrew,  Sir  John  Danvers,  Edward  Herbert, 
Richard  Tomlyns,  John  White,  Anthony  With- 
ers, John  Bland,  Gabriel  Barber,  and  WiUiam 
Berblock  to  attend  the  royal  commissioners  with 
a  portion  of  the  evidences  which  they  had  de- 


EFFORT  TO   PRESERVE   THE   EVIDENCES      71 

mandecl,  and  to  ask  the  commissioners  in  the 
company's  name  that  "  they  would  respite  the 
deHvery  of  the  accompts  until  the  accomptant 
might  take  copies  of  them,  when  together  with 
the  other  things  they  shoiUd  be  delivered  to 
them."  But  we  now  know  that  the  copying  of 
the  records  for  private  preservation  began  be- 
fore May  27,  1623. 

It  is  now  quite  certain  that  both  Sir  John 
Danvers  (so  long  an  auditor  of  the  company) 
and  Mr.  Nicholas  Ferrar  (the  deputy  treasurer), 
"  foreseeing  the  destruction  of  the  company's 
records,"  had  copies  made  privately.  Danvers 
had  "  The  Leiger-Court  Books "  (the  acts  of 
the  general  courts,  beginning  with  the  quar- 
ter court  of  May  8,  1619,  and  ending  with  the 
court  of  June  17, 1624)  copied  and  attested,  and 
Ferrar  had  "  all  the  court  books  and  all  other 
writings  belonging  to  the  company "  copied 
and  attested.  Both  the  Danvers  and  the  Ferrar 
copies  were  delivered  (by  Danvers  and  Ferrar 
respectively)  for  safe  keeping  to  the  Earl  of 
Southampton,  the  last  treasurer  of  the  company, 
in  the  summer  of  1624.  As  soon  as  the  royal 
commissioners  learned  of  these  copies  they  called 
on  the  earl  for  them ;  but,  regardless  of  the 
royal  orders,  he  replied  that  "  he  would  as  soon 
part  ^^^th  the  e^^dences  of  his  land  as  with  the 
said  copies,  being  the  e^'idence  of  his  honor  in 
that   service."     Southampton  soon  went  to  the 


72        EFFORT  TO  PRESERVE  THE  EVIDENCES 

Netherlands,  where  he  died,  and  James  I.  him- 
self died  not  long  after.  Thus  Providence,  which 
preserved  our  political  rights,  also  preserved  these 
evidences ;  for  it  need  not  be  supposed  that  any 
of  these  copies  could  have  been  preserved  if 
James  I.  had  lived  longer.  The  Ferrar  copies 
are  still  missing.  Those  which  have  been  found 
are  of  vast  importance,  not  only  within  them- 
selves, but  also  in  showing  the  character  of  the 
evidences  which  were  then  confiscated  by  the 
crown . 

The  absolute  control  over  all  evidence  then 
possessed  by  the  crown  did  not  produce  the 
only  serious  difficulty  in  the  way  of  finding  the 
facts  in  after  times,  for  the  control  of  an  absolute 
king  over  the  lives  of  his  subjects  made  it  neces- 
sary to  their  safety  for  them  to  conduct  mat- 
ters very  secretly.  It  was  not  safe  to  keep  com- 
plete records  of  a  movement  in  which  life  and 
liberty  were  at  stake,  and  there  was  constant 
need  for  diplomacy.  Many  acts,  resolves,  etc., 
of  the  Patriots  were  without  doubt  never  re- 
corded at  all,  and  evidently  much  of  the  com- 
pany's record  has  to  be  "  read  between  the  lines." 
Even  the  books  of  "  The  Seminary  of  Sedition  " 
reveal  so  little  of  the  political  character  of  the 
corporation  that  the  Rev.  William  Stith  and 
subsequent  historians,  who  had  the  use  of  some 
of  these  books,  regarded  the  Virginia  body 
politic  as  being  merely  a  commercial  company. 


HISTORY  LICENSED   BY  THE  CROWN  73 

There  is  still  another  difficulty,  owing  to  the 
parties  -which  arose  in  the  Virginia  Company 
itself,  frequently  causing  the  e^'idence  of  one 
party,  when  relating  to  the  acts  of  the  other,  to 
be  unfavorable  and  ex  parte  evidence.  Thus 
members  of  the  parties  in  the  cor[)oration  either 
willingly  or  unwittingly  played  into  the  hands 
of  the  royal  commissioners  by  furnishing  evi- 
dence the  one  party  against  the  other. 


CHAPTER  ni 

THE    HISTORY    PTIBLISHED    UNDER    THE  AUSPICES 
OF    THE    CROWN 

It  was  very  natural  for  such  a  king  as  James  I. 
to  determine  to  efface  every  trace  of  such  a  move- 
ment as  this  was,  and,  unfortunately  for  the  truth, 
he  did  not  die  until  after  the  original  e%4dences  of 
the  corporation  had  been  confiscated,  until  after 
the  censored  histories  had  been  pubHshed,  and 
his  plans  against  the  true  history  of  the  great 
reform  movement  had  been  consummated. 

The  chief  means  resorted  to  by  the  crown  for 
preventing  the  truth  from  ever  being  found  out 
was  by  suppressing  the  manuscript  evidences ; 
and  the  chief  means  for  perpetuating  such  false 
ideas  as  were  agreeable  to  the  Court  party  was 
through  the  censored  press.  Therefore,  in  con- 
sidering the  effect  of  poHtics  on  the  history  of 


74  HISTORY  LICENSED  BY  THE  CROWN 

the  original  of  our  body  politic  as  it  has  been 
published,  it  is  of  the  first  importance  to  form  a 
correct  estimate  of  the  original  history  published 
under  the  auspices  of  the  crown,  which  has  been 
the  foundation  upon  which  subsequent  histories 
have  been  based.  In  order  to  do  this  satisfacto- 
rily, it  is  necessary  to  consider  the  character  and 
position  of  the  author ;  the  conditions  obtaining 
and  influencing  opinions  and  evidences  •when  the 
book  was  compiled  and  when  it  was  published  ; 
the  view-point  and  character  of  the  matter  in  the 
book  ;  the  circumstances  which  fostered  the  book 
for  generations ;  and,  finally,  to  note  the  charac- 
ter of  the  fruit  which  has  been  produced  thereby. 
I  have  written  a  great  deal  about  this  book  which 
it  is  not  necessary  to  repeat.  What  I  am  going 
to  write  shall  have  reference  especially  to  the 
political  conditions  which  have  not  previously 
been  sufficiently  considered. 

I  have  regarded  Captain  John  Smith  as  the 
responsible  author  of  this  "  history,"  and  as  such 
have  held  him  personally  responsible  for  its  con- 
tents, character,  and  the  historic  harm  which  has 
been  done  by  it,  and  I  may  have  blamed  him 
too  much  in  the  matter  ;  for,  save  for  the  support 
of  the  Court  party,  the  book  would  not  have  been 
licensed  or  published,  and  therefore  James  I.  and 
the  Court  party  are  really  more  to  blame  for  the 
publication  of  his  "  history  "  than  he  is  himself. 
It  is  true  that  he  criticised  the  managers,  but  so 


HISTORY   LICENSED   BY   THE   CROWN  75 

did  the  Court  party.  It  is  true  that  his  personal 
piu'pose  was  evidently  to  glorify  himself;  but  as 
his  authority  to  act  in  Virginia  and  his  authority 
to  publish  his  stories  in  England  were  derived 
from  the  crown,  both  as  an  official  in  Virginia 
and  as  a  historian  in  England  he  was  really  the 
servant  of  the  crown.  The  references  to  himself 
being  considered  not  personal,  but  in  the  sense 
of  his  political  position  as  the  king's  loyal  repre- 
sentative, —  the  honors  for  the  services  rendered 
by  the  official  servant  of  an  absolute  king  were 
thought  to  belong  to  the  king  his  master,  — 
therefore  he  was  free  to  carry  out  his  personal 
purpose  completely  so  long  as  his  story  con- 
formed with  the  purposes  of  the  crown.  If 
his  services  in  Virginia  had  been  greater  even 
than  he  says  they  were,  and  if  his  accounts  had 
been  written  in  defense  of  the  political  purposes 
of  the  Patriots,  they  would  have  been  suppressed 
by  the  crown  as  such  evidences  were  suppressed. 
If  he  had  acted  with  the  Patriots,  protested 
against  the  king's  form  of  government  for  the 
plantations,  returned  to  Virginia  under  the  body 
politic,  supported  the  popular  course  of  govern- 
ment, upheld  our  charter  rights,  and  given  up  his 
life  in  America  while  carrying  forward  the  great 
cause,  he  would  have  fared  in  histories  pubHshed 
under  the  auspices  of  the  crown  as  the  martyrs 
of  our  genesis  did  fare.  History  cannot  be  writ- 
ten or  estimated  fairly  without  giving  due  con- 


76  HISTORY  LICENSED  BY  THE  CROWN 

sideration  to  the  influence  of  politics  on  the 
evidences. 

Let  us  consider  the  conditions  which  led  up  to 
the  publication  of  this  book :  Captain  John  Smith 
was  a  prisoner  charged  ^ith  the  capital  offense 
of  comphcity  in  "the  open  and  confessed  mu- 
tiny "  of  Galthorpe  when  he  arrived  in  Virginia 
in  1607 ;  but  his  life  was  protected  by  the  com- 
mission which  he  held  from  James  I.  as  a  member 
of  liis  council  in  Virginia.  Under  the  influence 
of  the  free  air  of  America,  respect  for  the  king's 
authority  in  Virginia  soon  began  to  wane.  In 
January,  1608,  of  the  six  members  of  the  king's 
council  in  Virginia,  Wingfield  had  been  deposed, 
Gosnold  had  died,  Kendall  had  been  executed, 
and  under  the  leadership  of  Captain  Gabriel 
Archer,  who  wished  the  planters  (to  whom 
James  I.  had  not  granted  the  right  to  govern 
themselves)  to  set  up  a  parliament  of  their  own 
in  Virginia,  Smith  was  tried  for  disobedience  of 
orders,  and  condemned  to  be  executed ;  but  the 
coming  in  of  Captain  Christopher  Newport,  who 
held  his  own  commission  from  the  crown  at  this 
time,  prevented  the  assembling  of  the  parliament 
and  saved  the  life  of  Smith .^ 

In  December,  1608,  when  Captain  Newport 
left  Virginia  with  the  planters  and  reports  which 
were  instrumental  in  causing  the  Patriots  to  pe- 
tition for  a  charter  enabling  them  to  remove  the 

'  See  The  First  Republic  in  America^  pp.  65,  66,  67. 


HISTORY   LICENSED   BY   THE   CROWN  77 

king's  council  and  to  reform  the  king's  plan  of 
government  in  Virginia,  Captain  John  Smith  was 
the  president  of  the  king's  council  representing 
James  I.  in  Virginia.  In  August,  1G09,  when 
the  portion  of  the  corporation's  fleet  arrived 
with  the  news  that  the  charter  to  a  body  politic 
had  been  granted.  Smith  was  not  only  the  presi- 
dent, but  the  only  surviving  representative  of  the 
king  in  his  council  in  Virginia.  Unfortunately 
these  ships  did  not  bring  the  official  copy  of  the 
new  charter,  as  it  was  in  charge  of  the  governor, 
Sir  Thomas  Gates,  who  had  been  wrecked  on 
the  Bermudas ;  and  the  absence  of  this  charter, 
coupled  with  the  knowledge  that  it  had  been 
granted,  caused  a  confusion  of  authority  in  Vir- 
ginia. Smith,  as  president  of  the  king's  coun- 
cil, held  on  to  the  official  copies  of  the  original 
authorities,  —  the  king's  charter  of  April,  1606, 
his  princely  instructions  of  November,  1606,  and 
his  constitution  for  the  plantation  of  March, 
1607,  and  made  the  circumstances  thus  obtaining 
a  pretext  for  refusing  to  admit  Captains  Rad- 
cliffe,  Martin,  and  Archer  (old  members  who  had 
returned  with  the  fleet)  into  that  council,  al- 
though, like  Smith,  they  had  been  appointed 
thereto  in  the  first  instance  by  his  majesty  ; 
whereby  "  discencyons  "  arose  between  the  presi- 
dent of  the  king's  council  and  these  captains. 
Captain  Francis  West,  and  others,  which  finally 
resulted  in  his  being  deposed  from  the  presidency 


78         HISTORY   LICENSED   BY   THE   CROWN 

and  sent  to  England  to  answer  for  his  misde- 
meanors.^ Captain  George  Percy,  who  was  in 
Virsrinia  with  Smith  the  whole  time  of  his  ser- 
vice  there,  said  that  he  was  an  ambitious,  un- 
worthy, and  vainglorious  fellow  ;  that  he  aimed 
at  setting  up  "  A  Soveraigne  Rule  "  in  Vir- 
ginia, and  was  justly  deposed;  but  his  acts  in 
the  premises  were  well  calculated  to  receive  the 
subsequent  indorsation  of  the  Court  party,  as  they 
evidently  did  do. 

The  ships  on  which  he  returned  to  England 
arrived  in  December,  1609,  with  very  bad  reports 
regarding  the  conditions  in  the  colony  when  the 
fleet  left  Virginia;  but  it  was  afterwards  as- 
serted by  the  Court  party  and  in  the  history 
licensed  by  the  crown  that  the  colony  was  left  in 
excellent  condition  by  the  loyal  representative  of 
James  I.,  and  that  the  bad  conditions  did  not  be- 
gin until  after  the  ships  of  1609  (which  brought 
the  bad  reports  from  Virginia)  had  left  Virginia, 
which  assertion  is  manifestly  untrue. 

The  royal  grant  of  1606  to  a  company  had 
been  superseded  by  the  charter  of  1609  to  a 
body  politic ;  but  the  charter  had  not  reached 
Virginia.  The  managers  in  England,  feeling 
the  danger  of  chaos  obtaining  in  Virginia,  fitted 
out  Lord  De  La  Warr  as  soon  as  possible  and 

^  Tho  corporation  had  no  authority  to  punish  such  misde- 
meanors until  after  tlie  granting  of  the  XIV.  and  XV.  articles 
of  the  charter  of  1G12. 


HISTORY  LICENSED  BY  THE  CROWN         79 

sent  him  to  the  colony  with  the  authority  of  an 
absolute  governor,  and  he  arrived  just  in  time  to 
save  the  country  to  the  corporation.  Gates  re- 
turned to  England  in  September,  IGIO,  carrying 
the  first  news  of  his  shipwreck  in  the  Bermudas, 
and  subsequent  arrival  in  Virginia,  as  well  as  of 
the  safe  arrival  of  Lord  De  La  Warr,  and  the 
managfers  of  the  movement  soon  determined  to 
petition  for  their  second  charter. 

Captain  John  Smith,  the  king's  former  repre- 
sentative in  Virginia,  began  to  take  action  against 
the  charter  under  which  he  had  been  removed 
from  office  in  Virgania  and  the  managfers  who 
had  removed  him,  at  his  earliest  opportunity. 
Late  in  1610,  at  the  same  time  that  the  peti- 
tion drafted  by  Sir  Edwin  Sandys  for  this  sec- 
ond charter  was  being  considered  by  the  crown, 
and  afterwards  during  the  period  in  1610-1612, 
when  the  managers  of  the  business  were  trying 
to  fill  in  the  charter  with  subscriptions  to  the 
desired  amount  of  £30,000,  —  before  James  I. 
signed  it,  —  a  treatise,  which  had  been  compiled, 
it  was  said,  partly  in  Virginia  and  partly  in  Eng- 
land, by  some  (one  or  more)  of  those  who  had 
served  in  the  colony  under  the  crown,  and  had 
returned  to  England,  was  being  circulated  in 
manuscript  evidently  under  the  patronage  of  a 
party  opposed  to  the  reform  purposes  of  the 
Patriots.  The  avowed  motive  of  this  treatise 
was  to  show  *'  to  all  indifferent  readers,  that  the 


8U  HISTORY   LICENSED   BY   THE   CROWN 

country  was  healthy,  the  Indians  tractable,"  etc., 
the  "  defect  whereof  hath  only  been  in  the  man- 
aging the  businesse."  In  brief,  the  motive  was 
to  show  that  the  reasons  for  "the  past  defail- 
ments,"  which  the  managers  had  assigned  to 
justify  them  before  the  king  in  petitioning  for 
the  special  charters  incorporating  a  body  pohtic, 
were  not  true.  The  circulation  of  this  treatise 
probably  delayed  subscription;  but  the  country 
had  not  yet  been  secured  from  the  Indians  or 
Spaniards,  the  colony  was  not  yet  estabhshed, 
James  I.  was  not  yet  willing  to  risk  his  own 
revenues  in  the  undertaking  even  under  his  own 
officials  and  plan  of  government,  and  so,  regard- 
less of  this  opposition,  the  charter  was  finally 
signed  by  the  king  on  March  22,  1612. 

Late  in  1612,  when  James  I.  was  acting  as 
his  own  prime  minister,  and  when  the  enterprise 
was  passing  through  its  "  darkest  hour,"  some 
of  those  who  agreed  with  the  political  motive 
of  the  said  treatise  felt  justified  in  having  it 
published  at  Oxford.  It  was  dedicated  by  its 
author,  Captain  John  Smith,  to  his  patron,  Ed- 
ward Seymour  Earl  of  Hertford.  The  man- 
agers had  been  subjected  to  verbal  and  written 
criticism,  to  opposition  and  all  sorts  of  hin- 
drances from  the  beginning,  and  now  in  this 
dark  hour  the  press  was  opened  to  their  oppo- 
nents ;  thenceforth  they  were  to  have  still  greater 
need   for   all   the  wisdom   which    their   natural 


HISTORY  LICENSED  BY  THE  CROWN         81 

abilities  and  long  experience  had  given  them. 
Thenceforward  their  great  reform  movement 
had  to  be  carried  on  in  the  face  of  the  open 
and  ever  increasing  opposition  of  the  party  in 
the  state  and  in  the  church  which  controlled 
the  press ;  opposed  their  political  purposes,  and 
finally  confiscated  their  evidences  and  licensed 
the  history  of  their  enterprise  as  it  was  first  pub- 
lished. 

While  their  opponents  of  the  Court  party  were 
printing  at  Oxford  a  criticism  of  their  manage- 
ment and  purposes,  and  were  thus  laying  the 
narrow  foundation  for  the  false  history  of  their 
great  reform  movement  as  it  has  been  published, 
"  God's  secret  purpose  "  to  uphold  the  work  was 
so  strongly  fixed  in  the  minds  of  the  undaunted 
managers  that  they  were  holding  weekly  courts 
at  the  house  of  Sir  Thomas  Smith  in  London, 
"  yielding  their  purses,  credit,  and  counseil,  from 
time  to  time,  even  beyond  their  proportion,  to 
uphold  the  plantation,"  and  were  thus  preserv- 
ing through  "  the  darkest  hour  "  the  broad  po- 
litical foundation  upon  which  this  great  nation 
stands  erected.  But  most  unfortunately  they 
had  no  control  over  the  press,  and  the  subse- 
quent accounts  of  their  movement,  Hcensed  by 
the  crown,  were  based  on  this  ex  parte  Oxford 
tract. 

It  was  immediately  followed  up  by  the  first 
edition  of  "  Purchas  his  Pilgrimage  "  in  1613,  and 


82  HISTORY  LICENSED   BY  THE   CROWN 

the  second  edition  of  the  Scame  in  1614  ;  Howes* 
first  edition  of  Stow's  Chronicles  in  1615 ;  the 
third  etlition  of  Purchas  in  1617;  the  second 
edition  of  Howes  in  1618,  etc.  Smith  himself 
summarized  the  same  ideas  in  his  "  Description 
of  New  England "  in  1616,  and  in  his  "  New 
England's  Trials  "  of  1620  and  1622,  and  there 
were  other  imprints  of  less  historical  pretensions 
during  1613-1622,  upholding  the  pohtical  pur- 
poses of  the  Oxford  tract,  and  opposing  those  of 
the  managers  of  the  movement. 

In  the  spring  of  1623,  when  Sir  Thomas 
Smith's  party  in  the  Virginia  Company  was  con- 
tending that  the  colony  had  prospered  under  his 
management,  and  charging  that  it  had  gone  to 
ruin  under  Sandys,  etc.,  and  the  Sandys  party 
was  denying  both  the  claim  and  the  charge, 
the  author  of  the  Oxford  tract  began  compil- 
ing a  book  virtually  contradicting  both  of  these 
parties ;  contending  that  the  colony  had  pros- 
pered under  his  management  and  under  the 
king's  form  of  government,  and  had  gone  to 
ruin  after  the  alteration  thereof ;  asserting  that 
the  business  had  been  mismanaged  by  Sir  Thomas 
Smith  prior  to  1617,  and  under  the  administra- 
tion of  Sandys  since  that  year,  etc.  In  the  fol- 
lowing summer.  Captain  John  Smith,  the  author, 
was  before  the  king's  connnissioners,  and  gave 
such  answers  to  seven  questions  as  were  calcu- 
lated to  please  the  Court  party  and  to  justify 


HISTORY  LICENSED  BY  THE  CROWN         83 

James  I.  in  his  purpose  to  annul  the  charters 
that  conveyed  the  poHtical  rights  which  have 
sustained  this  nation  since  its  birth.  Late  in 
1G23,  Smith  was  distributing  a  prospectus  of  his 
"  Generall  Historic  of  Virginia,"  etc.,  among  the 
nobihty  and  gentry  of  England,  beginning  : 
"  These  observations  are  all  I  have  for  the  ex- 
pences  of  a  thousand  pound  and  the  losse  of 
eighteene  yeares  of  time."  He  then  entreats 
them  to  "  give  me  what  you  please  towards  the 
impression,"  etc.  He  soon  found  a  patroness  in 
the  Duchess  of  Richmond  and  Lenox,  the  widow 
of  his  former  patron,  Edward  Seymour  Earl  of 
Hertford,  and  also  the  widow  of  Ludovic  Stuart, 
late  lord  steward  of  the  king's  household.  On 
June  26,  1624,  the  charters  of  our  body  politic 
were  overthrown  in  the  king's  bench ;  on  July 
4th,  a  special  royal  commission  was  appointed  to 
aid  James  I.  in  confiscatin";  the  evidences  of  that 
body ;  and  on  July  22d,  Smith's  history  of  the 
enterprise  of  the  company  conducted  under  the 
crown  (1606-1609),  as  well  as  of  the  reform  politi- 
cal movement  conducted  under  that  body  (1610- 
1624),  was  Hcensed  by  Master  Doctor  Goad,  and 
entered  for  publication  at  Stationer's  Hall  in 
London. 

Rev.  Thomas  Goad,  D.  D.  (1576-1638),  who 
licensed  the  book,  was  a  domestic  chaplain  to 
George  Abbot,  Archbishop  of  Canterbury,  head 
of  the  Privy  Council,  and  of  the  High  Commis- 


84         HISTORY  LICENSED  BY  THE  CROWN 

sion,  which,  together  with  the  court  of  the  Star 
Chamber,  had  a  special  control  over  the  press. 
As  we  have  seen,  there  had  been  a  long  and  bit- 
ter contest  between  the  Court  and  Patriot  parties 
over  our  original  political  charter  rights,  and  the 
obtaining  of  this  license  at  this  time  did  not 
depend  on  the  personal  disinterestedness  of  the 
author,  nor  on  the  fairness  of  the  book  to  the 
patriotic  managers,  planters,  and  adventurers, 
who  had  secured  this  country  for  us  at  the  ex- 
pense of  their  own  blood  and  treasure  unassisted 
by  the  crown,  nor  on  its  value  as  history ;  but 
to  the  contrary  it  depended  on  the  loyalty  of  the 
author  to  the  purposes  of  the  Court  party,  and 
on  the  book's  conforming  to  the  purpose  of 
James  I.  to  obliterate  the  true  idea  of  this  great 
political  movement,  and  to  rob  our  patriotic  foun- 
ders of  their  historic  rights  and  of  the  honors 
due  them.  The  Court  party  wished  to  show  the 
public  that  much  better  effects  had  been  pro- 
duced under  his  Majesty's  most  prudent  and 
princely  form  of  government  than  under  the 
popular  course  of  the  Corporation,^  and  both  the 
view-point  and  matter  in  this  "  history  "  are  in 
accord  with  the  purposes  of  James  I.  and  the 
Court  party. 

When    the  Oxford   tract  was  being  printed, 
the  faithful  managers,  planters,  and  adventurers 
were   very  earnestly  trying  to  carry  the  move- 
*  See  The  First  Republic  in  America,  pp.  541,  542. 


HISTORY  LICENSED  BY  THE  CROWN         85 

ment  through  its  darkest  hour  and  to  save  the 
colony  at  their  own  expense.  When  "  the  Gen- 
erall  Historie"  was  being  compiled,  the  faithful 
Patriots  had  secured  the  country  for  us  at  the 
expense  of  their  own  blood  and  treasure  unas- 
sisted by  the  cro^vn,  and  were  trying  to  defend 
our  political  charter  rights  against  the  assaults 
of  the  Court  party.  The  pubhcation  of  "  the 
tract "  marks  the  active  beginning  of  the  move- 
ment in  favor  of  the  king's  resuming  the  gov- 
ernment of  the  plantations,  and  annulling  the 
company's  charters  ;  and  the  pubhcation  of  "  the 
historie "  marks  the  culmination  of  that  move- 
ment under  James  I. 

"  Purchas  his  Pilgrimes "  which  had  been 
licensed  in  1621,  was  finally  published  in  four 
large  volumes  not  long  before  the  death  of 
James  I.  The  Rev.  Samuel  Purchas,  the  author 
or  compiler  of  this  work,  as  chaplain  to  Abbot, 
Archbishop  of  Canterbury,  and  head  of  the  High 
Commission,  had  authority,  as  such,  to  examine 
manuscript  to  see  that  it  conformed  to  or  was 
loyal  to  the  purposes  of  the  crown,  —  was  not 
seditious,  —  and  to  license  books.  And  he  was 
probably  looked  to  by  the  Court  party  as  the 
historian  of  the  colonial  movement ;  ^  but  the 
Virginia  matter  in  his  volumes  was  evidently 
either  largely  based  on  Smith's  works,  or  col- 
lected for  him  by  Smith,  and  therefore  to  all  in- 
^  See  The  First  Republic  in  America,  pp.  635-637. 


86         HISTORY  LICENSED  BY  THE  CROWN 

tents  and  purposes  Captain  John  Smith  must  be 
reirarded  as  the  authorized  author  under  the 
crown  of  the  history  of  the  movement  which 
•was  published  under  the  auspices  of  James  I. 
Hence  the  so-called  "  John  Smith  controversy  " 
covers  the  published  history  of  the  period,  1606- 
1624,  and  may  be  more  properly  called  the  con- 
troversy between  the  Patriot  party,  which  founded 
the  country,  and  the  Court  party,  which  founded 
the  history.  But  James  I.  was  really  the  respon- 
sible author  or  founder  of  this  controversy. 


PART  m 

The  influence  of  politics  on  the  historic  record  while  the 
evidences  continued  under  the  control  of  the  crown,  —  an 
outline  of  the  contest  over  our  political  and  historic  rights 
between  the  Court  and  Patriot  parties,  from  1625  until  the 
Patriots  determined  to  secure  their  political  rights  by  force 
of  arms  in  1776,  —  showing  the  ways  by  which  the  original 
historic  wrong  was  supported  and  perpetuated  under  the 
crown. 


CHAPTER  I 

UNDER   CHARLES    I.,  1626-1641 

Having  considered  the  influence  o£  contem- 
porary politics  on  the  pubhshed  history,  we  have 
now  to  consider  the  pohtical  influences  and  cir- 
cumstances which  fostered  that  history  for  many 
generations. 

Charles  I.  succeeded  to  the  crown  at  his  father's 
death,  and,  fortunately  for  our  original  charter 
rights,  he  was  under  personal  obligations  to  both 
Sir  Edwin  Sandys  and  Mr.  Nicholas  Ferrar,  Jr., 
who  had  been  his  most  active  friends,  when,  as 
Prince  of  Wales,  his  case  against  the  Earl  of 
Middlesex  was  before  Parliament  in  1624 ;  and 
this  circumstance  may  be  regarded  as  one  of 
the  reasons  why  he,  as  king,  was  for  many  years 
more  liberal  in  dealing  with  the  political  purposes 
of  the  political  body  of  the  colony  than  his  father 
had  been.  He  soon  asked  the  old  patriotic  man- 
agers of  the  Virginia  business  to  give  him  their 
opinion  touching  the  best  form  of  government, 
etc.,  for  Virginia.  In  their  reply  they  very 
astutely  laid  great  stress  on  the  past  enmity  of 


90  UNDER  CHARLES  I.,   1625-1C41 

the  Earl  of  Middlesex  to  their  old  corporation ; 
claimed  that  it  was  chiefly  through  his  instru- 
mentality that  their  charters  had  been  annulled, 
and  then  asked  his  majesty  to  restore  them. 
This  discourse  for  presentation  to  the  king  was 
written  very  diplomatically.  James  I.  was  shielded 
by  laying  blame  for  many  things  on  Sii*  Thomas 
Smith's  party.  The  late  managers,  in  regard  to 
their  evidences,  asserted  in  effect '  that  the  [royal] 
commissioners  had  taken  possession  of  the  original 
court  books  of  the  late  company,  and  if  they  could 
have  gotten  into  their  hands  the  copies  of  them 
which  Mr.  Nicholas  Ferrar  had  caused  to  be  tran- 
scribed, they  proposed  doing  the  Patriot  party  in 
that  corporation  a  wrong  in  their  honors  and 
reputations  by  reforming  and  correcting  the 
said  originals  so  as  to  make  them  conform  to 
their  [the  royal]  purposes ;  but  before  their 
severe  order  for  the  copies  came  to  Ferrar  he  had 
delivered  them  to  the  Earl  of  Southampton,  who 
sent  the  [royal]  commissioners  word  that  he 
would  as  soon  part  with  the  evidences  of  his  land 
as  with  the  said  copies ;  they  being  the  evidences 
of  his  honor  in  that  service.'  And  the  late 
managers  appealed  earnestly  to  the  committee  of 
the  Privy  Council  then  in  charge  of  the  colonies, 
"  that  howsoever  your  Lordship)s  shall  please 
for  the  future  to  dispose  of  the  companie,  that 
the  records  of  their  2^o,st  actions  tnay  not  he 
corrupted   and  falsified:'      Their  records  had 


UNDER  CHARLES   I.,   1G25-1641  91 

been  confiscated  by  the  crown  and  their  past 
actions  had  been  falsified  in  the  histories  licensed 
under  the  crown ;  thus  they  were  aware  of  the 
need  for  protection,  and  were  evidently  anxious 
to  protect  the  truth  of  history  so  far  as  they  pos- 
sibly could.  Previous  to  this  earnest  appeal  to 
the  crown,  before  he  went  to  the  Netherlands  in 
the  fall  of  1624,  the  Earl  of  Southampton  had 
sent  the  Danvers  copies  for  safe  keeping  to  his 
seat,  Titchfield  in  Hampshire,  and  had  given  the 
Ferrar  copies  for  safe  keeping  to  Sir  Robert  Kil- 
ligrew,^  who  had  been  appointed  to  the  king's 
commission  of  July  25,  1624,  but  had  been  a 
member  of  the  liberal  party  in  the  Virginia  Cor- 
poration, and  was  in  sympathy  with  the  efforts 
to  preserve  the  copies  of  their  records.  Charles  I. 
replied  to  the  discourse  of  the  late  managers  of 
"  the  old  Virginia  Company  "  in  a  printed  pro- 
clamation issued  on  May  23, 1625  —  in  a  friendly 
way ;  but  rejecting  their  appeal  for  a  renewal  of 
the  corporation  and  body  politic.  He  said  "  that 
our  full  resolution  is  that  there  maie  be  one  uni- 
form course  of  government  in  and  through  all  our 
whole  Monarchic.  That  the  government  of  the 
Collonie  of  Virginia  shall  ymmediately  depend 
uppon  our  Selfe,  and  not  be  commytted  to  anie 
Company,  or  Corporation,  to  whom  it  maie  be 
proper  to  trust  Matters  of  Trade  and  Commerce, 
but  cannot  be  fitt  or  safe  to  communicate  the 

^  See  Packard's  Ferrar,  p.  156. 


92  UNDER   CHARLES   I.,   1625-1G41 

ordering  of  State  Affaires  be  they  of  never  see 
meaue  consequence,"  etc. 

The  Ferrars  had  cooperated  most  earnestly  with 
Sandys  and  other  Patriots  in  their  purpose  to 
estabhsh  a  popular  course  of  government  in  this 
country.  They  had  based  great  hopes  on  the 
popular  charter  rights  of  the  corporation.  They 
had  been  deprived  of  hope  by  James  I. ;  the 
liope  revived  under  Charles  I.  now  vanished; 
like  their  friend,  George  Herbert  the  divine  poet, 
they  saw  plainly  that  "  the  Court  was  made  up 
of  fraud,  and  titles,  and  flattery,  and  painted 
pleasures,"  and  they  determined  to  retire  from 
the  world  of  London.  On  June  9,  1625,  Mrs. 
Mary  Ferrar  bought  lands  at  Little  Gidding, 
Huntingdonshire,  in  the  names  of  her  son  Nicho- 
las, and  her  nephew,  Arthur  Wodenoth,  and  the 
family  soon  after  removed  there ;  but  we  shall 
see  that  they  never  lost  interest  in  Virginia. 

When  the  death  of  Mr.  John  Pountis  (who  had 
been  sent  to  prosecute  their  suit  for  our  charter 
rights  before  James  I.  in  1624)  became  known 
in  Virginia,  "  The  Governor  (Wyatt),  Counsell, 
and  Colony  of  Virginia  assembled  together," 
under  the  impression  (real  or  pretended)  that 
their  former  petition  had  not  been  presented  to 
his  majesty,  determined  to  appeal  to  him  again, 
and  in  June,  1625,  sent  their  second  petition  for 
our  charter  rights  to  England  by  the  hands  of 
Sir  George  Yeardley.     It  was  not  then  known  in 


UNDER   CHARLES   I.,   1625-1641  93 

Virginia  that  James  I.  was  dead,  and  this  petition 
was  addressed  to  him.  Yeardley  arrived  in  Eng- 
land about  two  months  after  Charles  I.  had  dis- 
solved his  first  Parliament,  changed  the  address, 
and  presented  to  Charles  I.  the  petition,  which 
not  only  asked  for  many  of  our  original  charter 
rights,  but  also  asked  to  have  them  confirmed  by 
act  of  Parliament. 

The  second  Parliament  met  in  February,  but 
was  dissolved  in  June,  1626,  and  during  the 
session,  in  March,  Yeardley,  a  Patriot,  was  com- 
missioned and  sent  back  to  Virginia  as  governor 
by  Charles  I.,  but  "  the  Liberty  of  Generally  As- 
semblyes  "  and  other  rights  petitioned  for  were 
not  yet  restored. 

Soon  after.  May  27,  1626,  Sir  Francis  Wyatt, 
who  as  governor  had  continued  to  maintain  the 
original  popular  form  of  government  in  the  col- 
ony so  far  as  possible  since  1624,  was  sent  from 
Virginia  with  a  third  j^eiltion  from  Virginians 
to  the  king  and  Privy  Council  for  our  original 
charter  rights,  etc.  Finally,  in  the  autumn  of 
1627,  in  response  to  repeated  petitions,  memo- 
rials, letters,  and  messengers  from  Virginia,  and 
probably  influenced  thereto  somewhat  by  the 
political  contentions  and  conditions  in  England, 
Charles  I.  concluded  to  permit  the  colony  to 
retain  her  General  Assembly  and  other  political 
charter  rights,  to  which  James  I.  was  so  bitterly 
opposed.     The  royal  order  restoring  the  House 


94  UNDER   CHARLES   I.,   1625-1641 

of  Burgesses  arrived  in  Virginia  on  March  4, 
1628,  and  Captain  Francis  West,  a  Patriot  who 
was  then  governor,  immediately  issued  orders  for 
the  first  election  of  burgesses  under  the  crown, 
and  summoned  the  General  Assembly  to  meet  at 
Jamestown  on  March  20,  1628. 

Charles  I.  was  constantly  vacillating  in  this 
matter ;  having  yielded  to  the  appeals  of  the 
Patriots  for  a  General  Assembly  in  the  autumn 
of  1627,  on  April  5, 1628,  he  commissioned  John 
Harvey,  a  royalist,  who  had  been  at  the  head  of 
the  royal  commission  sent  to  Virginia  by  James  I. 
in  1623,  as  governor  of  the  colony.  But  grave 
political  influences  were  at  work.  On  May  18th, 
less  than  forty-five  days  after  Harvey's  appoint- 
ment, the  celebrated  "  Petition  of  Rights "  was 
brought  up  in  the  third  Parliament  by  our  old 
friend,  John  Selden,  and,  after  holding  out  as 
long  as  he  could  well  do,  on  July  6th  Charles  I. 
found  it  advisable  to  assent  to  this  petition,  but 
prorogued  the  Parliament  on  the  same  day.  The 
very  first  Parliament  of  Charles  I.  in  1625  had 
"  opened  the  floodgates  of  a  long  contention  with 
the  crown,"  which  was  really  a  protection  to  the 
liberal  pohtical  ideas  while  they  were  growing 
and  gaining  strength  in  America.  And  the 
breach  between  the  kinsf  and  the  Commons  was 
now  (1628)  really  more  complete  than  ever  be- 
fore. Charles  I.,  realizing  the  fact  that  the  col- 
onists were  becoming  important  factors  in  the 


UNDER  CHARLES   I.,   1625-1641  95 

politics  of  the  realm,  on  September  22,  1628, 
sent  an  official  letter  to  Governor  Harvey,  in 
which  he  yielded  other  charter  rights  to  our 
body  politic,  renewing  to  the  planters  in  Vir- 
ginia their  lands  and  privileges  formerly  granted, 
etc. 

The  corporation  would  doubtless  have  been 
glad  to  yield  their  past  historic  rights  to  the 
crown  in  order  to  aid  in  securing  from  the  crown 
their  political  rights,  and  even  while  the  contest 
over  the  political  charter  rights  was  going  on  in 
a  way  not  entirely  unfavorable  to  the  Patriots, 
the  royal  ideas  of  their  reform  movement  were 
being  constantly  impressed  (without  public  pro- 
test) by  the  royal  press  on  the  mind  of  the 
public.  A  fourth  edition  of  "  Purchas  his  Pil- 
grimage "  was  published  in  1626  ;  Smith's  "  Gen- 
erall  Historie "  was  reissued  in  1626,  in  1627, 
and  twice  in  1632  ;  his  "  True  Travels,"  licensed 
in  1629,  was  published  in  1630 ;  and  his  "  Ad- 
vertisements for  the  Unexperienced  Planters  "  was 
published  in  1631.  The  views  of  these  books 
were  of  course  in  accord  with  the  views  of  the 
Court  party,  and  opposed  to  the  interests,  acts, 
and  political  purposes  of  the  Patriot  party.  The 
author  of  these  books  had  become  a  subject  of 
ridicule  ^  for  writing  so  much  and  doing  so 
little.'  In  August,  1625,  Sir  William  Segar  had 
a  copy  of  a  paper  said  to  have  been  given  to 
Smith  by  Sigismund  Bathor  recorded  in  the  her- 


96  UNDER  CHARLES  I.,   1625-1641 

aid's  office.  Segar  must  have  been  imposed  upon 
in  this  matter,  as  he  was  when  he  granted  the 
royal  arms  of  Aragon  to  Brandon,  the  common 
hangman  of  London,  for  the  paper  was  evidently 
a  forgery.^ 

In  April,  1631,  Sir  John  Harvey  wrote  from 
Virsfinia  to  Lord  Dorchester  that  ^the  self-will 
government,  as  formerlie  hath  bin  practised  in 
Virginia,'  was  still  obtaining;  and  that  the 
council  contended  that  his  —  the  royal  gov- 
ernor's —  "  power  extended  noe  further  than  a 
bare  castinge  voice,"  etc.  The  political  ideas 
prevailing  in  Virginia  were  not  without  influence 
in  England.  In  June,  1631,  Charles  I.  appointed 
a  large  commission  for  advising  him  upon  some 
course  for  establishing  the  advancement  of  the 
plantation  of  Virginia.  This  commission,  being 
composed  for  the  most  part  of  members  of  the 
old  Patriot  party  in  the  original  body  politic, 
favored  the  renewal  of  the  ancient  charters  of 
the  corporation  ^  as  the  best  course  for  the  ad- 
vancement of  the  colony,  and  in  the  autumn  of 
1631  they  sent  in  a  petition  to  Charles  I.  to  that 
effect. 

In  reply  to  this  petition  the  opposing  Court 
party  in  England  soon   issued   "  Considerations 

1  See  Notes  and  Queries,  London,  7th  series,  vol.  ix.  pp.  1,  41, 
102,  IGl,  223,  and  281  ;  and  The  Genesis  of  the  United  States,  vol. 
ii.  p.  1008. 

2  Charles  I.  had  granted  a  similar  charter  to  Massachusetts 
in  March,  1629. 


UNDER  CHARLES   I.,   1G25-1G11  97 

against  the  renewing  of  a  Corporation  for  Vir- 
ginia," in  which  they  make  use  of  some  of  their 
arsfuments  of  1G22-1624 :  referrinsr  to  the  meet- 
ings  of  the  old  Virginia  Courts  (the  old  "  semi- 
nary of  sedition  ")  as  "  mutinous  meetings  ;  " 
contending  that  the  forms  of  government  insti- 
tuted in  Ireland  by  James  I.  and  in  the  West  In- 
dies by  the  kings  of  Spain  were  preferable  to  the 
popular  course  of  our  original  body  politic,  which 
they  asserted  would  "  poyson  that  Plantation 
with  factious  spirits,  and  such  as  are  refractory 
to  Monarchicall  government  as  all  Corporations 
are  —  as  is  found  by  experience  in  the  Corpora- 
tion of  New  England."  And  they  go  on  to 
justify  the  seizing  of  the  company's  papers  and 
^'  Diaries  "  by  James  I.  in  1624. 

In  August,  1631,  the  Earls  of  Dorset  and 
Danby,  Sir  Robert  Killigrew,  Sir  John  Dan- 
vers.  Sir  Dudley  Digges,  Sir  Francis  Wyatt, 
Thomas  Gibbes,  George  Sandys,  Nicholas  and 
John  Ferrar,  Gabriel  Barber,  and  others  of  the 
commission,  sent  letters  to  Virginia  in  the  inter- 
est of  the  proposed  renewal  of  the  charter  ;  and 
in  furtherance  of  that  object  the  council  in  Vir- 
ginia in  December,  1631,  buried  their  opposition 
to,  came  to  an  accord  with,  and  entered  into  an 
agreement  of  peace  and  reconciliation  with,  the 
royal  governor,  Harvey.  About  the  same  time 
the  planters  in  Virginia  sent  in  their  petitions 
for  the  renewal  of  the  charter.     These  petitions 


98  UNDER  CHARLES   I.,   1625-1641 

from  Virginia  reached  England  early  in  1632. 
In  March,  the  adventurers  in  England  held  a 
meeting,  and  "  expressed  a  grateful  readiness  to 
accept  his  Majesties  grace  and  bounty  in  proffer- 
ing a  new  charter  of  Restitution  of  a  Company, 
with  confirmation  of  all  their  ancient  Territorie, 
rights  and  privileges  whatsoever,  —  some  points 
of  government  only,  with  some  few  other  reser- 
vations, excepted." 

But  in  June,  1632,  Charles  I.,  constantly 
vacillating,  granted  Maryland  within  the  bounds 
of  "  their  ancient  Territories "  to  Lord  Balti- 
more, regardless  of  the  protest  of  Virginians. 
And  it  was  about  this  time  that,  at  the  instance 
of  Lord  Baltimore,  the  judgment  of  the  King's 
Bench  in  the  quo  warranto  case  (June,  1624) 
against  their  charter  was  entered  upon  record  for 
the  first  time. 

Sir  Robert  Killigrew  died  in  May,  1633,  and, 
in  the  continued  effort  to  preserve  the  copies  of 
the  records,  left  the  Ferrar  copies  to  the  care  of 
Edward  Sackville  Earl  of  Dorset,  who  had  also 
been  a  member  of  the  Patriot  party  in  the  Vir- 
ginia Company,  and  was  then  at  the  head  of 
the  Liberal  Colonial  Commission  appointed  by 
Charles  I.  in  June,  1631. 

In  the  summer  of  1633  this  commission  held 
meetings  and  consultations  w4th  divers  of  the 
chief  planters  of  Virginia  (who  had  evidently 
come  to  England  for  that  purpose),  at  which  it 


UNDER  CHARLES   I.,   1625-1641  99 

was  resolved  to  urge  the  king  to  a  compliance 
with  their  petition  ^  praying  for  a  renewal  of  their 
ancient  charter.  Charles  I.  had  visited  the  Ferrars 
at  their  home,  "  Little  Gidding,"  in  May,  1633, 
and  seems  now  to  have  been  tUsposed  to  grant 
their  request  for  a  renewal  of  their  ancient  char- 
ter, with  certain  alterations  ;  but  was  not  willing 
to  yield  to  them  Lord  Baltimore's  patent.  And 
the  Virginians  were  not  willing  to  yield  to  the 
crown  their  ancient  boundary  rights,  and  there- 
fore their  request  was  finally  denied  them. 

The  king  then  revoked  the  liberal  commis- 
sion of  1631,  and  on  May  8,  1834,  appointed  a 
"  commission  for  governing  the  colonies  "  of  an 
entirely  different  complexion,  composed  almost 
entirely  of  opponents  of  the  popular  course  of 
government :  William  Laud  Archbishop  of  Can- 
terbury, Thomas  Lord  Coventry  (the  old  advo- 
cate of  the  Court  party  in  the  quo  warranto 
suit  of  1624),  Richard  Neyle  Archbishop  of 
York,  and  nine  high  officers  of  state,  several  of 
whom  had  aided  James  I.  in  his  contest  against 
our  charter  rights  in  1620-1624;  and  under 
this  commission  the  grant  to  Lord  Baltimore, 
which  had  been  opposed  by  the  former  commis- 
sion, was  confirmed.  All  the  boroughs  or  corpo- 
rations of  Virginia  had  been  entitled,  since  1619, 

^  Sent  from  Virginia  in  March,  received  by  the  king  in  May, 
and  considered  by  the  Privy  Council  in  May,  June,  July,  and 
August,  1633. 


100  UNDER  CHARLES  I.,  1625-1641 

to  representation  in  the  House  of  Burgesses,  but 
under  the  new  commission  for  governing  the 
colonies,  Virginia  was  divided  in  1634  into 
''  eight  shires,"  and  representation  restricted  to 
them.  In  order  to  prevent  alarm  among  Vir- 
ginians over  these  and  other  infringements  of 
their  charter  rights  by  the  royal  conmiission,  the 
colonial  committee  of  the  Privy  Council  on  Au- 
gust 1,  1034,  wrote  to  Governor  Harvey  in  Vir- 
ginia that  "  in  the  present  proceeding  it  is  not  in- 
tended that  interests  which  men  (planters)  have 
settled  when  you  were  a  corporation  should  be 
impeached ;  that  for  the  present  the  planters 
may  enjoy  their  estates  with  the  same  freedom 
and  privileges  as  they  did  before  the  recaUing  of 
their  patents."  The  comfort  in  this  letter  was 
not  definite,  and  must  have  seemed  very  cold  to 
the  old  Patriots  in  Virginia. 

Under  the  royal  rule  of  the  royal  commission 
in  England,  and  of  Sir  John  Harvey  the  royal 
governor  in  Virginia,  the  spirit  of  freedom 
which  had  always  inspired  the  planters  was  soon 
aroused  into  what  the  Court  party  regarded  as  a 
rebelhon.  The  revolt  was  led  by  John  West, 
William  Claiborne,  Samuel  Matthews,  John  Utie, 
William  Pierce,  William  Ferrar,  William  Perry, 
George  Menefie,  Thomas  Harwood,  Dr.  John 
Pott,  Nicholas  Marlier  or  Martian  (an  ancestor 
of  George  Washington),  and  other  old  members 
of  the  original  of  the  body  politic  of  this  nation, 


UNDER  CHARLES   I.,   1G25-1G41  101 

and  in  May,  1635,  resulted  in  the  removal  of 
Sir  John  Harvey,  a  royalist,  and  the  election  by 
the  General  Assembly  of  Captain  John  West,  a 
Patriot,  as  governor  in  Harvey's  place.  Harvey 
went  to  England,  arrived  at  Plymouth  soon  after 
the  New  Enjjland  charter  of  1620  had  been  sur- 
rendered  to  the  king,  gave  the  king  his  account 
of  the  Virginia  affair,  was  reappointed  and  sent 
back  to  Virginia,  where  he  arrived  early  in 
1637.  In  the  spring  of  that  year  John  West 
(governor  by  election  of  the  representatives  of 
the  people,  1635-1637),  Samuel  Matthews,  John 
Utie,  and  others  "  were  sent  prisoners  to  England 
to  answer  some  objections  in  the  Star  Chamber," 
and  Sergeant-Major  George  Donne  ^  was  sent  at 
the  same  time  by  Governor  Harvey  as  his  agent, 
"  to  prosecute  those  persons  that  were  lately 
seditious  in  Virginia."  While  in  England, 
Donne  (who  went  to  Virginia  with  Harvey  in 
1630)  wrote  a  very  long  "  review  of  Virginia " 
to  Charles  I.,  which  is  a  discourse  from  the  point 
of  view  of  the  Court  party,  rather  than  a  re- 
view. He  was  opposed  to  the  popular  course 
of  government  which  obtained  in  Virginia  — 
"  where  no  acknowledgement  of  A  Superior  is," 
and  "  such  presumptuousness  in  men  of  turbu- 
lent and  unquiett  spirits  as  have,  I  am  confident, 
from  the  first  footinge  in  Virginia  to  this  pre- 

^  A  son  of  Rev.  John  Donne  (1573-1631),  the  eminent  divine 
and  poet. 


102  UNDER  CHARLES   I.,   1625-1641 

sent,  much  hindered  the  progress  thereof.  How 
this  Assertion  findes  warrant  is  evident  by  the  late 
action  of  some  particulers  fiery  and  headstrong  in 
their  disorder  and  conspiracy  against  your  Majes- 
ties Commissioned  Governor  Harvey,  at  this  pre- 
sent in  that  Country."  He  said  that  the  conspi- 
racy against  the  royal  governor  was  "  noe  doubt 
long  in  plotting  though  lately  practised,"  and 
urged  the  king  to  put  a  stop  to  the  popular  course 
of  government  in  the  colony,  which  he  describes 
as  "  by  A  multitude  whose  Pollicy  is  gayne,  whose 
gra\4tye  is  giddinesse,  whose  Discretion  is  noyse 
and  tumidt,"  encouraging  mutinies  and  rebel- 
lions against  the  royal  government. 

But  the  ears  of  Charles  I.  were  not  yet  en- 
tirely closed  to  the  popular  side ;  the  liberal 
party  in  Virginia  stiU  had  friends  near  his  per- 
son or  in  correspondence  with  him,  and  among 
these  may  be  mentioned  Sir  John  Danvers  and 
Mr.  George  Sandys  (brother  of  Sir  Edwin  Sandys, 
who  had  died  in  1629),  who  were  then  gentlemen 
of  the  king's  Privy  Chamber.  He  was  also  on 
very  friendly  terms  with  the  fourth  Earl  of  South- 
ampton, John  Ferrar,  and  others ;  and  on  Janu- 
ary 21,  1G39,  he  appointed  Sir  Francis  Wyatt, 
the  Patriot,  to  succeed  Harvey,  the  Royalist,  as 
governor  of  Virginia.  Wyatt  arrived  in  the 
colony  in  November,  1639,  and  at  once  ordered 
an  election  of  burgesses,  who  met  in  the  General 
Assembly  of  January,  1640,  at  which  time  it  was 


UNDER  CHARLES  I.,  1C25-1G41  103 

determined  to  make  another  effort  to  secure  the 
original  charter  rights  of  the  body  politic  of  the 
colony.  George  Sandys  was  appointed  as  the 
agent  of  the  colony  in  England  ;  petitions  for 
their  ancient  charter  rights  were  prepared  and 
sent  over  to  him.  The  fourth  Parliament  of 
Charles  I.  met  in  April,  1640,  but  the  king 
never  could  get  along  with  his  Parliaments,  and 
he  dissolved  it  within  a  month.  His  fifth  and 
last  Parliament,  which  was  destined  to  "  dis- 
solve" the  king,  met  on  November  13,  1640. 
The  petitions  from  Virginia  probably  reached 
England  in  the  autumn  of  1640,  after  both 
Sandys  and  Danvers  had  retired  from  the  king's 
personal  service.  The  open  contest  between  the 
crown  and  the  Commons  was  in  sight.  The  Pa- 
triots in  England  "  had  been  led  a  race "  by 
Charles  I. :  they  now  determined  to  look  to  the 
Parliament ;  and  George  Sandys  presented  these 
petitions  for  restoring  the  company's  charters, 
not  to  Charles  I.,  but,  in  "  the  name  of  the  Ad- 
venturers and  Planters  in  Virginia,"  to  the 
House  of  Commons  in  the  bejrinninjr  of  the 
Long  Parliament,  and  under  the  auspices  of  the 
popular  party  in  that  Parliament  "  the  Virginia 
patent  was  taken  out  again  under  the  broad  Seal 
of  England." 


101  CIVIL   WAR,   1641-1646 

CHAPTER  II 

CIVIL   WAR,    1641-1646 

The  long  controversy  between  the  crown  and 
the  House  of  Commons  became  an  open  contest 
on  the  execution  of  Thomas  Wentworth  Earl  of 
Strafford,  in  May,  1641. 

In  response  to  the  petition  of  Governor  Wyatt, 
the  General  Assembly,  and  patriotic  planters  of 
Virginia,  the  Virginia  charter  had  been  renewed 
by  Parliament :  Charles  I.  naturally  felt  that  he 
would  need  a  stronger  hand  in  the  colony  than 
Wyatt  if  Virginia  was  to  be  kept  loyal  to  the 
crown ;  and  in  August,  1641,  he  commissioned 
Sir  Wilham  Berkeley  (a  strong  Royalist)  to  super- 
sede Wyatt,  the  Patriot,  as  governor.  He  arrived 
in  Virginia  in  February,  1642,  and  at  once  be- 
gan to  take  steps  for  holding  the  colony  loyal  to 
the  crown.  To  offset  the  regranting  of  the  an- 
cient charter  by  Parliament  in  reply  to  the  peti- 
tion of  the  General  Assembly  under  Wyatt,  he 
promptly  called  another  assembly  to  meet  under 
his  own  auspices  —  which  issued  a  strong  decla- 
ration,^ written   from  the  point  of   view  of  the 

*  In  "  the  Declaration  against  the  Company,"  as  printed  in 
Ilening's  Statutes  at  Large  of  Virginia,  vol.  i.  p.  231,  the  reference 
to  "depositions  taken  at  a  Grand  Assembly  anno  1632"  is  really 
to  depositions  taken  by  Harvey  when  he  was  a  commissioner  or 
agent  of  .lames  I.  in  Virginia  in  1623  (o.  s.).  It  is  an  error  of 
the  typesetter. 


CIVIL   WAR,  1641-1646  105 

Royalist  or  Court  party,  against  the  renewal  of 
the  charters,  assuring-  the  king  that  George 
Sandys,  in  presenting  the  former  petition  to  the 
House  of  Commons,  "  had  mistook  his  instruc- 
tions." The  paper  is  of  especial  value,  because 
it  shows  the  line  of  argument  used  by  the  Roy- 
alists against  the  charter  rights  to  the  people  as 
a  political  body.  This  Declaration  of  Berkeley's 
Assembly  was  sent  in  April,  1G42,  directly  to 
Charles  I.  himself,  who  replied  in  July  following 
to  the  effect  that  he  had  no  idea  of  surrendering 
"  his  colony  to  any  company."  Thus  the  peti- 
tions from  both  parties  in  Virginia  prevailed  with 
their  respective  parties  in  England.  The  Parlia- 
ment was  soon  in  the  ascendant,  and  it  came  to 
pass  that  the  colonists  virtually  enjoyed  their 
"  ancient  charter  rijjhts  "  until  16G0.  The  kintr 
had  rejected  the  propositions  of  peace  from  Par- 
liament on  June  12th  j  in  August  following  he 
set  up  his  standard  in  Nottingham,  and  the  civil 
war  besfan  in  earnest. 

Parhament,  having  set  up  a  rival  government 
in  England,  on  December  4,  1643,  appointed  a 
rival  commission  for  governing  the  plantations 
in  America,  with  Philip  Herbert  Earl  of  Pem- 
broke and  Edward  Montague  Earl  of  Manches- 
ter at  the  head  of  it ;  and  among  its  members 
were  John  Pym  and  Oliver  Cromwell. 

Parliament,  having  an  issue  of  its  own  with  the 
crown,  had  been  from  the  first  disposed  to  lend  a 


106  CIVIL  WAR,  1641-1646 

liand  to  the  popular  party  in  the  Virginia  Corpo- 
ration in  all  their  past  controversies  with  the 
Court  party  ;  but,  under  the  Sandys-Ferrar  influ- 
ence, Charles  I.  had  not  been  entirely  unfriendly 
to  the  reform  government  which  had  been  insti- 
tuted in  our  country,  and  I  doubt  if  there  was 
any  desire  for  a  separation  from  the  crown  of 
Great  Britain.  Certainly  there  was  no  -wisdom 
in  such  desire  until  the  colonies  became  strong 
enough,  when  united  in  a  corporate  capacity,  to 
defend  themselves  and  to  maintain  their  own 
rights.  Although  the  opposition  to  the  absolute 
tyranny  then  exercised  by  the  crown  in  England 
had  led  up  to  the  Commonwealth,  and  had  fur- 
nished the  inspiration  which  had  enabled  the 
managers  of  the  business  to  estabHsh  the  colonies 
regardless  of  all  difficulties,  the  colonists  did  not 
wish  to  be  "  slaves  to  the  Parliament  in  Eng- 
land "  any  more  than  they  did  to  the  king.  In 
fact  their  purpose  had  been  to  be  attached  to  the 
crown  of  England,  "  to  have  one  common  king 
with  the  mother  country,"  but  a  parliament  of 
their  own,  and  to  have  no  laws,  taxes,  etc.,  put 
upon  them,  save  by  their  own  consent,  as  enacted 
in  their  own  parliament,  or  General  Assembly. 
Hence  it  may  be  doubted  if  Sir  William  Berke- 
ley's task  in  preventing  open  rebelHon  against 
the  crown  in  Virginia  was  a  very  difficult  one. 
Especially  as,  although  the  colony  was  under  a 
governor  appointed  by  the   crown,   the  people 


PARLIAMENT,   1646-1660  107 

were  left  very  much  on  their  own  resources,  and 
aknost  independent  of  the  government  in  Eng- 
land, whether  CavaUer  or  Roundhead,  from  1642 
to  1652. 

CHAPTER  III 

PARLIAMENT,    ETC.,    1646-16601 

Parliament  had  been  kept  so  busy  in  England 
that,  although  it  had  reissued  the  original  charter 
to  the  body  politic  of  the  colony,  near  the  begin- 
ning of  the  session,  little  or  nothing  was  done  in 
the  matter  of  settling  the  government  of  Virginia 
under  the  Commonwealth,  until  September,  1651, 
when  Robert  Dennis,  Richard  Bennett,  Thomas 
Stagg,  and  William  Claiborne  were  appointed 
commissioners  of  Parliament  and  sent  with  a  fleet 
to  Virginia.  After  arriving  in  Virginia,  the  sur- 
viving commissioners  and  the  Grand  Assembly 
of  Virginia  soon  entered  into  an  agreement,  signed 
on  March  22,  1652  (n.  s.),  in  which  the  Com- 
monwealth of  England  granted  to  the  colony  of 
Virginia  her  former  liberties,  privileges,  and  an- 

^  Charles  I.  fled  to  Scotland  in  May,  1646;  was  given  up  by 
the  Scots  to  Parliament  in  September  following,  and  was  exe- 
cuted February  9,  1649  (n.  8.).  The  Commonwealth  of  Eng- 
land was  established  on  the  death  of  Charles  I.,  but  the  first 
charter  thereof  was  not  drawn  up  by  tlic  council  of  officers  until 
December,  1053.  England  was  under  the  government  of  the 
Parliament,  or  "A  Democracie,"  1046-1653;  the  Protectorate 
of  Oliver  Cromwell,  December,  1653,-September,  1658,  and  of 
Richard  Cromwell,  1658-April,  1659;  and  the  Civil  War 
resumed,  1659-1660. 


108        OF  THE  CONTROL  OVER  HISTORIES 

cient  limits ;  free  trade,  exemption  from  taxation 
save  by  her  own  Assembly,  etc.,  —  that  is  to  say, 
the  charter  rights  of  the  original  corporation  of 
the  colony. 

From  March,  1652,  to  1660  the  colony  was 
virtually  ruled  by  the  House  of  Burgesses, — 
"  the  representatives  of  the  people."  Richard 
Bennett,  a  Patriot,  was  elected  by  that  House  on 
May  10,  1652,  to  serve  as  governor  for  three 
years ;  Edward  Digges,  a  Patriot,  was  elected  in 
1665,  and  Samuel  Matthews,  a  Patriot,  in  1658. 
He  died  in  January,  1660,  before  the  expiration 
of  his  term.  Civil  war  was  renewed  in  England 
in  1659 ;  but  the  restoration  of  Charles  II.  was 
soon  in  sight,  and  the  General  Assembly  of  Vir- 
ginia elected  Sir  William  Berkeley,  a  Royahst,  as 
governor,  in  March,  1660. 

The  Commonwealth  had  fulfilled  its  mission, 
and  Providence  had  aided  in  fostering  the  spirit 
which  animated  the  founders  of  this  nation  until 
their  projected  political  purposes  had  taken  an 
ineradicable  hold  in  Virginia. 

CHAPTER  IV 

OF  THE  CONTROL  OVER  HISTORIC  RECORDS 

If  we  consider  the  character  of  the  controver- 
sies between  the  Court  and  Patriot  parties,  it  will 
be  seen  that  it  was  not  possible  to  correct  the 


OF  THE  CONTROL  OVER  HISTORIES         109 

historic  wrong  committed  by  James  I.  so  long  as 
the  evidences  and  the  press  continued  under  the 
control  of  the  crown. 

In  the  reign  o£  Elizabeth  the  Star  Chamber 
Court  granted  a  decree  prohibiting  the  printing 
of  books  withDut  the  license  of  one  of  the  arch- 
bishops or  of  the  bishop  of  London,  or  their 
representatives.  In  February,  1629,  certain  print- 
ers presented  a  petition  to  Parliament,  complain- 
ing that  Laud's  chaplain  had  refused  to  license 
certain  books.  John  Selden,  in  presenting  this 
petition  of  the  printers,  said  :  "  There  is  no  law 
to  prevent  the  printing  of  any  book  in  England, 
but  only  a  decree  in  the  Star  Chamber.  There- 
fore, that  a  man  should  be  fined,  imprisoned,  and 
his  goods  taken  from  him,  is  a  great  invasion  of 
the  liberty  of  the  subject."  But  the  correction 
of  this  wrong  was  not  accomplished  at  that  time. 
"  Printers  and  authors  continued  to  be  brought 
before  the  High  Commission,  and  taught  to  obey 
the  restrictions  imposed  upon  them  at  the  risk 
of  fine  and  imprisonment."  ^ 

I  will  note  some  examples  bearing  on  our 
premises.  When  Mr.  Nicholas  Ferrar,  Jr.,  sent 
George  Herbert's  poem,  "  The  Church  Militant," 
to  Cambridge,  in  1633,  to  be  licensed  for  the 
press,  the  vice-chancellor  would  by  no  means 
allow  the  printing  of  the  noted  verses :  — 

"  Religion  stands  a-tiptoe  in  our  land, 
Ready  to  pass  to  the  American  strand, 

^  Gardiner's  History  of  England,  vii.  p.  130. 


110         OF  THE  CONTROL  OVER  HISTORIES 

When  height  of  malice  and  prodigious  lusts, 
Impudent  sinning,  witchcrafts,  and  distrusts, 

Then  shall  religion  to  America  flee." 

And  Mr.  Ferrar  would  by  no  means  allow  the 
book  to  be  printed  without  them,  and  he  finally 
had  his  way. 

In  April,  1637,  John  Lilburne  was  condemned 
in  the  Star  Chamber  to  be  whipped,  pilloried, 
and  imprisoned  for  publishing  seditious  pam- 
phlets. While  in  the  pillory  he  spoke  to  the 
people  against  the  tyranny  of  the  Court  party, 
and  scattered  pamphlets  from  his  pockets.  Dur- 
ing life  he  continued  fighting  for  the  cause  of 
freedom,  and  was  upheld  by  the  voice  of  the 
people.  Thomas  Jefferson's  grandmother,  Jane 
Rogers,  of  Shadwell  Street,  London,  was  certainly 
related  to  "  Wm.  Lilburne  Esqre  of  Kenton  in 
the  Bishoprick  of  Durham,"  of  the  same  family, 
and  Jefferson  may  have  descended  from  John's 
brother.  General  Robert  Lilburne,  the  regicide. 

It  has  been  said  that  ^  the  mere  assemblino;  of 
the  Long  Parliament  on  Nov.  13,  1640,  took  the 
gag  entirely  off  the  press ; '  but  this  is  not  strictly 
correct.  The  courts  of  Star  Chamber  and  Hio-h 
Commission,  which  had  been  condemned  by  the 
Patriots  in  various  Parliaments  since  1607  as 
grievances,  were  aboHshed  by  the  Long  Parlia- 
ment in  July,  164],  and  the  press  was  relieved 
of  their  oppression ;  but  the  press  was  not  yet 


OF  THE   CONTROL   OVER   HISTORIES         111 

free.  John  Milton  was  the  foremost  champion 
in  that  age  for  the  liberty  of  unlicensed  printing ; 
but  even  he  asserted  in  his  ^' Areopagitica  "  (pub- 
lished in  1644),  '  that  it  is  of  greatest  concern- 
ment in  the  church  and  Commonwealth,  to  have 
a  vigilant  eye  how  Books  demean  themselves,  as 
well  as  Men  ;  and  thereafter  to  confine,  imprison, 
and  do  sharpest  justice  to  them  as  malefactors ; 
for  Books  are  not  absolutely  dead  things,  but  do 
contain  a  potencie  of  life  in  them  to  be  as  active 
as  that  soul  was  whose  progeny  they  are ;  nay, 
they  do  preserve  as  in  a  viol  the  purest  efficacy 
and  extraction  of  that  living  intellect  that  bred 
them ;  they  are  as  lively,  and  as  vigorously  pro- 
ductive as  those  fabulous  Dragon's  teeth ;  and, 
being  sown  up  and  down,  may  chance  to  spring 
up  armed  men.' 

There  was  very  little  if  any  printing  done  after 
1622  by  members  of  the  Patriot  party  relative  to 
Virginia  until  the  press  was  free  from  the  con- 
trol of  the  crown.  Under  the  Commonwealth 
John  Ferrar,  the  surviving  deputy,  and  other  old 
Patriots  in  England,  corresponded  with  many  old 
planters  in  Virginia,  and  aided  in  publishing  sev- 
eral books  about  the  colon}^,  among  these  being 
Wodenoth's  "  Short  Collection  ;  "  "  The  Dis- 
covery of  New  Britaine,"  by  Edward  Bland  and 
others,  dedicated  to  Sir  John  Dan  vers  ;  "  Vir- 
ginia and  Maryland,"  and  other  tracts  of  less 
political  importance  to  our  earliest  history. 


112        OF  THE  CONTROL  OVER  HISTORIES 

Of  these  Wodenoth's  tract  was  of  the  greatest 
political  and  historical  importance.  During  the 
ciWl  war,  about  the  year  1644,  at  which  time  he 
was  the  deputy  governor  of  the  Bermudas  Islands 
Company,  Mr.  Arthur  Wodenoth,  who  had  been 
a  member  of  the  hberal  party  in  the  Virginia 
Corporation,  a  first  cousin  to  the  Ferrar  brothers, 
wrote  "  An  account  and  observation  taken  by 
A.  W.,  a  true  friend  and  servant  to  Sir  John 
Danvers,  and  the  Parliament  interest,  containing 
a  great  part  of  his  [Danvers']  more  public  trans- 
actions concerning  the  plantation  of  Virginia," 
etc.  Mr.  Wodenoth,  who  is  well  known  as  the 
friend  and  executor  of  George  Herbert,  the  di- 
vine poet,  died  soon  after  writing  the  book,  leav- 
ing the  manuscript  to  his  cousin,  Will  Wodenoth, 
with  instructions  to  publish  it  at  a  seasonable 
time.  Before  this  time  came  Will  Wodenoth 
had  died.  The  book  was  finally  published  in 
1651  under  the  title  of  "A  Short  Collection 
of  the  most  remarkable  passages  from  the  ori- 
ginal to  the  dissolution  of  the  Virginia  Com- 
pany," 1609-1624.  Having  evidently  been  writ- 
ten largely  from  memory  after  a  considerable 
lapse  of  time,  Arthur  Wodenoth  was  not  sure 
of  dates,  but  asked  his  cousin  to  "  view  the  court 
books  of  the  Virginia  Company  and  the  orders 
of  the  Privy  Council  Board,  and  [before  publica- 
tion] to  add  therefrom  the  year  of  our  Lord  in 
the   Margent  at  every  main   transaction  ; "  but 


OF  THE  CONTROL  OVER  HISTORIES         113 

these  books  and  orders  were  not  available,  and 
the  tract  had  to  be  published,  as  wvitten,  without 
a  single  date.  For  this  reason  it  is  not  always 
clear,  if  taken  by  itself;  but  after  adding  the 
dates  in  the  "  Margent  "  and  considering  it  in 
connection  with  the  orders  and  other  records 
now  available  it  becomes  of  great  historic  value. 
With  the  light  shed  upon  it  by  other  evidences, 
and  with  the  Hght  which  it  sheds  upon  other  evi- 
dences, we  are  enabled  to  see  many  of  the  polit- 
ical purposes  inspiring  our  original  body  politic 
which  were  obscured  or  obliterated  from  the  his- 
tory as  licensed  by  the  crown.  Nothing  relative 
to  the  political  character  of  the  movement  could 
have  been  published  by  any  one  during  the  reigns 
of  James  I.  or  Charles  I.  Nothing  of  the  sort 
was  ever  published  by  Sir  Edwin  Sandys  or  any 
of  the  leading  patriotic  statesmen  among  the 
managers  of  the  business.  This  book,  published 
at  the  first  seasonable  time,  was  the  first  publica- 
tion, which  may  be  called  contemporary,  written 
boldly  from  the  political  point  of  view  of  the  Pa- 
triot party ;  and  although  it  was  not  written  by 
one  of  the  leading  statesmen  who  had  managed 
the  political  features  of  the  movement,  the  author 
was  a  man  of  established  character,  of  means  and 
of  personal  influence,  intimate  with  the  Ferrars 
and  Sir  John  Danvers,  and  evidently  knew  much 
relative  to  those  features ;  and  the  Court  party 
knew   this,   for    his    book    was    manifestly   sup- 


lU         OF  THE   CONTROL   OVER  HISTORIES 

pressed   after   the    restoration    of   the   king   in 

About  1655  John  Ferrar  wrote  the  memoirs 
of  his  brother  Nicholas  (who  had  died  in  1637) ; 
he  may  have  intended  pubHshing  it  —  if  so  the 
publication  was  prevented  by  John's  own  death 
in  the  autumn  of  1657.  After  1660  the  memoirs 
would  not  have  passed  the  censors  of  the  press, 
and  they  were  not  printed  until  1790,  and  were 
not  made  use  of  by  our  historians  until  after  that 
time.  Of  the  leading  managers  in  England, 
John  Ferrar,  Sr.,  was  probably  the  last  survivor. 
Henry  Earl  of  Southampton  died  in  1624  ;  Sir 
Thomas  Smythe  in  1625 ;  Robert  Johnson  and 
William  Canning  about  1628 ;  William  Lord 
Cavendish  in  1628 ;  Sir  Edwin  Sandys  in  1629  ; 
Nicholas  Ferrar,  Jr.,  in  1637  ;  Sir  John  Danvers 
in  1655,  and  John  Ferrar,  Sr.,  in  1657.  Of  the 
leading  managers  in  Virginia,  De  La  Warr,  Dale, 
and  many  others  died  before  the  crown  began 
the  open  attempt  to  annul  our  charter  rights. 
Gates,  Yeardley,  Francis  West,  and  many  others 
died  before  John  Ferrar.  John  West,  Samuel 
Matthews,  Richard  Bennet,  William  Claiborne, 
and  other  old  planters  lived  as  long  as  or  longer 
than  Ferrar.  These  old  members  of  our  orisrinal 
body  politic  were  able  to  nourish  and  to  protect 

'  I  made  use  of  it  in  compiling  The  First  Republic  in  America. 
I  cannot  find  tliat  it  was  ever  used  before  as  evidence  by  any 
one  in  writing  history. 


OF  THE  CONTROL  OVER  HISTORIES         115 

the  tree  of  Liberty  as  it  was  growing  from  the 
seed  which  they  had  aided  in  depositing  in  our 
sacred  soil  until  it  was  strong  enough  to  resist 
the  coming  storms ;  and  to  inspire  their  poster- 
ity with  the  determination  to  "  protect  that  tree  " 
with  the  same  vital  force  which  had  inspired  them 
to  })lant  that  seed. 

Although  naturally  more  anxious  to  protect 
their  charter  rights  than  their  history,  the  old 
Patriots,  who  had  a  personal  interest  in  preserv- 
ing the  true  history  of  the  colonial  movement  of 
1606-1G24:,  probably  did  whatever  they  could 
do  toward  preserving  evidences  ;  but  whatever 
they  did  had  to  be  done  privately  —  they  were 
never  able  to  publish  anything  in  Virginia,  for 
aJl  had  "  passed  over  the  river  "  before  any  print- 
ing press  was  allowed  in  Virginia. 

I  should  have  noted  before  this,  but  I  suppose 
that  it  has  been  well  understood,  that  the  sup- 
pression of  the  truth  in  this  matter  was  not  con- 
fined to  England,  but  also  obtained  in  Virginia 
so  long  as  the  colony  was  under  the  crown. 
Many  of  the  evidences  of  our  original  body  poli- 
tic were  sent  to  the  colony  —  during  1609-1G24: 
for  service  and  after  1G24  for  preservation ;  but 
they  were  not  secure  even  in  Virginia  from 
the  Court  party,  for  the  royiil  control  over  evi- 
dences prevailed  in  the  colony  after  it  was  re- 
sumed by  the  crown.  John  Harvey,  who  served 
at  the  head  of  the  royal  commission  of  1623- 


IIG  NOTES  FROM   1660  TO   1746 

1625  sent  to  Virginia  by  James  I.  for  the  pur- 
pose of  procuring  evidence  to  justify  him  in  an- 
nulHng  the  company's  charters,  was  one  of  the 
carhest  regular  royal  governors.  Another  was 
Sir  William  Berkeley,  who  in  1671  thanked  God 
that  there  were  no  free  schools  nor  printing  in 
Virginia,  an^  hoped  there  would  not  be  for  an 
hundred  years  —  "  for  learning  had  brought  dis- 
obedience [to  kings]  and  heresy  and  sects  into 
the  world,  and  ^^rwi^m^  had  divulged  them,  and 
libels  against  the  best  government  [the  king's]. 
God  keep  us  from  both  !  "  Such  governors  were 
as  well  calculated  to  obliterate  evidences  favor- 
able to  hberal  ideas  as  they  were  to  destroy  the 
popular  plant  growing  from  the  seed  which  had 
been  deposited  in  Virginia,  and  the  crown,  we 
may  rest  assured,  expected  them  to  do  both. 

CHAPTER  V 

NOTES    ON    THE    WAY    FROM    IGGO  TO  1746 

It  is  not  necessary  to  continue  the  outline,  in 
any  detail,  of  the  controversy  we  are  treating  of ; 
but  it  will  be  well  to  note  "  a  sign  "  along  the 
route  now  and  then  to  guide  the  student  on  his 
way. 

After  the  *  restoration  of  Charles  II.  in  1660 
the  iron  hand  of  royal  authority  was  placed  most 
firmly  on  the  press,  and  among  the  first  books 


NOTES   FROM   IGGO  TO   1746  117 

burnt  by  royal  proclamation  were  the  works  of 
Milton  in  defense  of  the  rif^hts  of  the  people. 

The  first  biographical  sketch  of  the  author  of 
our  earliest  history  was  compiled  during  the  civil 
war  by  Rev.  Thomas  Fuller,  chaplain  to  Ralph 
Hopton,  to  whom,  with  others,  Charles  II.  in 
1649  granted  the  Northern  Neck  of  Virginia. 
Fuller  died  in  August,  1G61,  but  the  publication 
of  his  "  Worthies  "  was  completed  by  his  son  in 
1662,  and  dedicated  to  Charles  II.  Fuller  had 
no  personal  knowledge  of  the  facts,  and  his  views 
of  Smith's  services  in  Virginia  as  a  representa- 
tive of  James  I.  were  those  of  the  Court  party, 
to  which  he  belonged ;  but  he  knew  personally 
something  of  Smith's  life  in  England,  and  his 
sketch  is  important,  because  it  throws  light  on 
the  contemporary  opinions,  even  of  members  of 
the  Court  party,  regarding  the  personal  matter 
in  his  publications,  and  on  the  personal  character 
and  position  in  society  of  a  man  whom  James  I. 
nominated  to  be  of  his  council  in  Virginia,  and 
whom  the  crown  licensed  to  publish  the  history 
of  this  o-reat  reform  movement. 

o 

In  considering  the  effect  of  politics  on  our  his- 
tory, we  must  consider  both  the  House  of  Com- 
mons in  EncT-land  and  the  House  of  Burjresses 
in  Virofinia.  The  convention  Parliament  which 
restored  Charles  II.  in  May,  1660,  was  not  in 
full  political  accord  with  the  king,  and  was  dis- 
solved by  him  in  December  following.     The  new 


118  NOTES  FROM   1660  TO   1746 

Parliament,  which  met  in  May,  1661,  was  more 
in  accord  with  the  crown  ;  but  contentions  began 
a"-ain,  and  the  king  finally  dissolved  it  in  De- 
cember, 1678.  A  second  Parliament  met  in 
March,  1679,  but  party  spirit  ran  very  high,  and 
it  was  dissolved  within  four  months.  The  third 
met  in  October,  1680,  and  was  dissolved  in  three 
months,  etc.  The  same  weapons  —  of  prorogu- 
ing, adjourning,  and  finally  dissolving  —  came 
to  be  used  by  the  royal  governors  of  the  colony 
in  their  contentions  with  our  House  of  Burgesses. 
It  must  be  noted  that  Charles  II.  held  on  to  one 
Parliament  from  1661  to  1678,  and  Berkeley 
held  on  to  one  House  of  Burgesses  from  1661 
to  1676. 

The  first  House  of  Burgesses  elected  after  the 
restoration,  which  met  April  1,  1661,  was  appar- 
ently very  loyal  to  Charles  II.  The  charter  to 
the  Virginia  Corporation  had  been  restored  by 
act  of  Parliament  about  twenty  years  before,  and 
Viro^inians  had  been  ofoverningf  themselves  under 
that  charter  since  1652  ;  the  majority  of  "  the 
Company  "  were  now  planters,  and  the  members 
of  this  House  of  Burgesses  were  really  members 
of  that  body  politic  ;  but  they  evidently  felt  the 
need  of  conciliating  the  king.  Charles  Campbell, 
on  page  252  of  his  history  of  the  colony,  says 
that  Governor  Berkeley  was  dispatched  to  Eng- 
land in  1661  to  oppose  "  the  navigation  act." 
From  the  act  of  assembly  as  published,^  he  seems 

'  See  Ilening's  Statutes  at  Large  of  Virginia,  vol.  ii.  p.  17. 


NOTES   FROM   IGGO  TO   1746  119 

to  have  been  sent  to  oppose  the  oppression  of 
some  company ;  but  the  name  of  the  company- 
is  not  given,  and  several  other  words  in  the 
manuscript  were  not  legible.  The  evidence  in 
the  premises  was  under  the  control  of  the  crown, 
and  what  remains  is  not  sufficient  to  enable  any 
one  to  know  the  facts.  It  is  probable,  however, 
that  the  Burgesses  feared  that  Charles  II.  would 
now  carry  out  the  former  plans  of  James  I. ;  for 
there  is  sufficient  evidence  to  prove  that  the 
colonists  still  wished  to  retain  their  original  char- 
ter  rights,  and  that  there  was  reason  for  this  fear 
is  manifest. 

In  May,  1669,  Charles  II.  issued  a  second  pat- 
ent confirming  the  grant  of  September,  1649 
(given  when  he  was  in  exile),  of  the  Northern 
Neck  of  Virginia  lying  north  of  the  northern 
boundary  as  conveyed  to  a  company  by  the  char- 
ter of  1606  ;  and  this  was  the  beginning  of  a 
long  controversy,  between  the  crown  and  the 
body  politic  of  the  colony,  over  boundary  rights. 

In  1673  Charles  II.  granted  "  A  demise "  of 
the  "entire  territory"  of  the  colony  of  Virginia 
to  the  Earl  of  Arlington  and  Lord  Culj^eper  for 
thu'ty-one  years.  This,  of  course,  was  at  once 
opposed  by  Virginians.  In  September,  1674, 
Colonel  Francis  Morryson,  Secretary  Thomas 
Ludwell,  and  Major-General  Robert  Smith  were 
appointed  "  Agents  for  the  Governor,  Council, 
and  Burgesses  of  the  Country  of  Virginia  and 


120  NOTES  FROM   1660  TO   1746 

Territory  of  Accomak,"  and  sent  to  England 
with  a  petition  to  procure  a  revocation  of  that 
'^  demise,"  and,  also,  with  a  petition  to  obtain 
from  the  crown  a  confirmation  of  the  ancient 
charter  rights,  liberties,  privileges,  and  properties 
of  the  colony.  They  opened  negotiations  with 
the  crown  for  these  rights  in  June,  1675.  These 
agents  were  really  asking  for  the  same  pohtical 
and  property  rights  which  had  been  the  platform 
of  the  Patriot  party  since  1609 ;  which  party 
never  acknowledged  that  our  charter  rights  had 
ever  been  legally  annulled  ;  but  there  was  always 
need  for  diplomacy  in  wording  such  petitions  to 
the  crown,  and  these  agents  yielded  the  point, 
acknowledged  that  James  I.  had  annulled  the 
original  charter,  and  then  based  their  petition 
on  the  ground  that  "  although  for  the  misgov- 
ernment  of  the  Company  the  charter  was  de- 
manded in  a  Quo  Warranto,  yet  did  the  said  king 
forthwith  promise  and  declare  that  a  charter 
should  be  renewed,  with  the  former  privileges, 
to  the  planters."  And  among  other  things  they 
assert,  almost  in  the  original  words  of  Sir  Edwin 
Sandys,  as  a  charter  right  that  "  Virginians 
should  not  be  taxed  without  their  own  con- 
sent. 


'  While  these  negotiations  were  going  on  in  England,  Sir 
William  Berkeley's  acts  in  Virginia  were  turning  Bacon's  war 
against  the  Indians  into  what  the  Court  p.'vrty  called  "Bacon's 
Kebellion." 


NOTES   FROM   IGGO  TO   1746  121 

In  reply  to  their  petition,  after  many  difficul- 
ties, and  two  years'  delay,  the  Virginians  gained 
nothing  from  Charles  II.,  save  a  charter  (signed 
October  20,  1676)  which,  instead  of  confirming 
their  original  charter  rights,  was  "  little  more 
than  a  declaration  of  the  dependence  of  the 
colony  on  the  crown  of  England."  And  the 
inhabitants  of  Virginia  were  destined  to  receive 
very  much  the  same  sort  of  treatment  in  reply 
to  their  appeals  and  petitions  for  an  hundred 
years  longer. 

It  has  been  said :  "  In  other  countries  it  has 
been  thought  hard  enough  to  have  the  printing 
press  clogged  by  the  interference  of  official  li- 
censers and  spies ;  in  Virginia  the  printing  press 
was  forbidden  to  work  at  all."  The  crown,  per- 
sisting in  the  purpose  of  obliterating  the  liberal 
ideas  which  had  given  vitaHty  to  the  colony,  had 
never  permitted  a  printing  press  to  be  set  up  in 
Virginia.  Yet,  in  some  way,  a  press  was  finally 
introduced  about  1680,  for  printing  the  laws  of 
the  representative  of  the  people  —  the  House 
of  Burgesses.  But  early  in  1683  the  royal 
governor,  Thomas  Lord  Culpeper,  called  John 
Buckner  (the  owner)  and  the  printer  before  him, 
and  ordered  them  not  to  print  anything  there- 
after until  his  majesty's  pleasure  should  be 
known.  The  next  year,  when  Francis  Lord 
Howard,  of  Effingham,  arrived  in  Virginia  as 
governor,  he  brought  orders  "  ^o  allow  no  ])er- 


122  NOTES  FROM   1660  TO   1746 

son  to  use  a  j)rinting  press  in  Virginia  on  any 
occasion  tohatsoever." 

The  restoration  of  Charles  II.  had  not  ob- 
literated the  desire  for  "a  more  free  govern- 
ment," either  in  Virginia  or  in  England,  and  we 
find  the  old  ideas  of  national  rights  and  liberties 
inspiring  the  revolution  which  removed  James  II., 
and  placed  William  and  Mary  on  the  throne  of 
Great  Britain  in  February,  1689. 

It  is  generally  stated  that  "  the  press  of  Great 
Britain  has  been  free  since  1693 ; "  but  the  free- 
dom of  the  press  continued  to  be  subject  to 
many  restrictions,  some  of  the  laws  of  libel 
and  of  loyalty  —  to  church  and  state  —  being 
especially  severe.  And  no  person  was  yet  al- 
lowed to  use  a  printing  press  in  Virginia  on  any 
occasion  whatsoever. 

In  1705  Robert  Beverley  published  in  Lon- 
don the  first  history  written  by  a  Virginian, 
covering  the  period  1606-1624.  When  Beverley 
was  compiling  this  history  he  does  not  seem  to 
have  had  the  use  of  one  particle  of  the  evidence 
of  our  original  body  politic,  —  not  a  single  one  of 
the  numerous  publications  of  the  managers  and 
not  a  scrap  of  their  record.  More  than  a  third 
of  his  narrative  relates  to  the  formative  period 
of  1606-1624,  and  the  whole  of  this  is  based  on 
the  histories  licensed  under  James  I.  The  ideas 
expressed  by  him  of  this  movement  are  the  ideas 
which  he  had  derived  from  those  histories. 


NOTES   FROM   1660  TO   17-46  123 

In  1738  Sir  William  Keith  published  a  his- 
tory of  Virj^inia,  in  which  about  20,000  words 
relate  to  the  three  years  (1G07-1G10),  while  the 
colony  was  under  the  crown,  and  only  about 
GOOO  words  to  the  fifteen  years  (1610-1625), 
while  the  colony  was  under  the  new  charter. 
Like  Beverley,  he  had  none  of  the  records  of 
the  Virginia  Company ;  none  of  the  publications 
of  the  managers  of  the  business ;  but  relied  en- 
tirely on  Beverley  and  the  histories  licensed  by 
the  crown.  His  "  history  "  and  Beverley's  have 
an  especial  value  as  guides,  because  they  show 
how  completely  the  purpose  of  James  I.  to  oblit- 
erate the  true  idea  of  our  origin  as  a  nation  had 
been  carried  out  under  royal  rule  up  to  that 
time,  and  what  our  ideas  of  this  movement 
would  now  be,  if  no  other  evidences  at  all  had 
been  preserved  save  those  given  to  the  public 
under  the  auspices  of  the  crown. 

As  a  further  illustration  of  how  completely 
the  records  were  suppressed  in  the  public  reposi- 
tories at  this  time,  it  may  be  mentioned  that 
although  three  editions  of  the  great  work, 
"  Rymer's  Fcedera,"  were  published  between 
1704  and  1745,  neither  of  the  three  American 
charters  (1606,  1609,  and  1612)  are  given  in 
either  edition ;  the  first  important  document 
given  bearing  on  the  movement  being  the  royal 
commission  of  May  19,  1623,  appointed  to  aid 
James  I.   in  annulling  our  charter  rights,  and 


124  STITirS  HISTORY  OF  VIRGINIA 

the  next  the  commission  of  July  25,  1624,  ap- 
pointed after  the  charters  had  been  overthrown 
in  tlie  King's  Bench,  to  aid  the  king  in  confis- 
cating the  company's  evidences  and  annulling 
their  historic  rights.  Thus  it  would  seem  that 
at  this  time  the  purpose  of  the  crown  to  obHter- 
ate  from  the  pages  of  history  the  truth  regard- 
in"-  our  origin  as  a  nation  had  been  accomplished. 
But  many  copies  of  the  evidences  of  our  original 
corporation  were  then  being  privately  preserved 
in  Virginia,  and  although  not  available  to  the 
historian,  many  other  evidences  were  then  being 
providentially  preserved  in  England,  and  thence- 
forward these  evidences  were  to  be  brought  to 
light  from  time  to  time  by  the  laborer  in  the 
field  of  orig:inal  research  in  search  of  the  truth. 

CHAPTER  VI 

STITh's    "history    of   VIRGINIA,"   1747 

The  press  finally  circumvented  (so  to  speak) 
the  opposition  of  the  crown  by  worming  its  way 
into  Virginia  via  Maryland.  As  early  as  1727 
William  Parks  had  established  a  printing  press 
at  Annapolis,  where  he  printed  for  the  govern- 
ments of  Maryland  and  Virginia.  He  set  up 
a  printing  press  in  Williamsburg,  probably  in 
1729,  and  finally  removed  to  that  city  to  reside 
in   1736.     He   was   the   first   legally  employed 


STITH'S  HISTORY  OF  VIRGINIA  125 

printer  in  Virginia.  "  Stith's  History  of  Vir- 
ginia," which  issued  from  his  press  in  1747,  was 
the  first  historical  book  published  in  Virginia, 
and  it  related  entirely  to  the  formative  period  of 
lGOG-1624. 

The  Rev.  William  Stith  was  far  better  equipped 
with  evidences  on  which  to  base  his  history  than 
any  previous  Virginia  historian  had  ever  been ; 
but  owing  to  the  long-continued  purpose  of  the 
crown  to  obliterate  the  truth,  he  was  very  far 
from  being  fully  equipped,  even  if  he  had  taken 
the  proper  political  view,  and  even  if  the  press 
of  the  colony  had  not  still  been  virtually  under 
the  control  of  the  royal  government.  It  is  very 
remarkable  that  in  compiling  his  history,  al- 
though he  evidently  had  access  to  the  leading 
libraries  in  Virginia,  he  did  not  have  the  use  of 
a  single  one  of  the  contemporary  prints  pub- 
lished by  the  managers  of  the  movement,  the 
history  of  which  he  proposed  to  write,  and  it 
was  not  possible  for  him  to  understand  the  case 
properly  without  them.  His  chief  published 
authorities  were  the  histories  of  Smith  and  Pur- 
chas,  which  had  previously  been  for  so  long  the 
only  authorities  available  to  historians.  He  had 
none  of  the  national  official  records  in  the  pre- 
mises ;  of  Spain,  France,  or  the  Netherlands, 
and  but  few  of  those  of  England,  and  he  could 
not  have  understood  the  movement  correctly 
without   them.     But   some   of   the   corporation 


126  STITH'S  HISTORY  OF  VIRGINIA 

records  —  or  rather  copies  of  them,  the  origi- 
nals having  been  confiscated  by  the  crown  in 
1(524  —  were  now  being  brought  to  light,  and 
he  had  a  good  many  of  these  relative  to  events 
after  1618  ;  but  only  a  few  of  the  records  prior 
to  that  date,  and  it  was  not  possible  for  him  to 
wT-ite  his  history  completely  without  them.  He 
knew  that  several  documents  issued  by  the  Vir- 
ginia courts  had  been  sent  over  by  Sir  George 
Yeardley,  but  he  had  the  use  of  only  one  of 
them ;  and  seems  to  have  been  under  the  mis- 
taken idea  that  the  "  great  charter "  and  the 
commission  of  1618  for  establishing  the  General 
Assembly  in  Virginia  had  not  been  issued  until 
after  the  changes  in  the  presiding  officials  of 
the  corporation  in  1619.  He  had,  however,  in 
manuscript  complete  copies  of  the  following 
really  important  documents  :  — 

The  Royal  Charter  of  April  20,  1606. 

The  King's  Instructions  of  Nov.  30,  1606. 

The  Orders  of  the  King's  Council,  Dec.  20, 
1606. 

The  Advice  of  the  King's  Council,  Dec.  20, 
1606. 

The  King's  Ordinance  and  Constitution,  March 
19,  1607. 

The  First  Charter  to  the  Body  Politic,  June 
2, 1609. 

The  Second  Charter  to  the  Body  Politic, 
March  22,  1612. 


STITH'S   HISTORY  OF  VIRGINIA  127 

The  Instructions  of  the  Virginia  Court  to 
Yeardley,  November,  1618. 

The  Instructions  of  the  Virginia  Court  to 
Wyatt,  August,  1621. 

The  Ordinance  and  Constitution  of  the  Body 
Politic,  1621. 

The  copies  which  had  been  preserved  in  Vir- 
ginia of  the  papers  sent  to  England  from  the 
General  Assembly  of  March,  1624,  by  Pountis  in 
1621:,  namely :  — 

A.  Their  Answer  to  Johnson's  Declaration. 

B.  Their  Answer  to  Butler's  Unmaskins". 

C.  Their  Petition  to  James  I. 

D.  Their  Letter  to  the  Privy  Council ;  en- 
closing — 

E.  The  Declaration  of  the  Ancient  Planters. 

F.  Their  Answer  to  Harvey's  Propositions; 
and  — 

G.  The  Laws,  Orders,  etc.,  passed  by  them 
during  the  session  of  February  and  March, 
1624.1 

"  And  last,  but  not  least,"  — 

The  copies  of  the  Acts  of  the  General  Courts 
of  the  Company  ("  The  Seminary  of  Sedition  ") 
in  London,  from  the  Quarter  Court  of  May  8, 
1619,  to  that  of  June  17,  1624. 

Next  to  the  charters  of  1609  and  1612,  the 
copies  of  the  records  of  the  Virginia  courts 
were  the   most  important   documents    used   by 

'  See  The  First  Republic  in  America,  pp.  571-i582. 


V2S  STITH'S  HISTORY   OF  VIRGINIA 

Stith.  They  covered  the  period  from  May, 
1619,  to  June,  1621,  but  contain  many  refer- 
ences to  prior  dates,  and  Stith's  history  of  events 
from  1618  to  1621  is  largely  based  on  them. 
As  Stith  did  not  have  a  proper  understanding 
of  the  case,  he  misunderstood  these  records  in 
several  particulars.  The  popular  form  of  gov- 
ernment had  been  instituted  in  Virginia  during 
the  administration  of  Sir  Thomas  Smith.  The 
parties  in  the  company  during  the  period  cov- 
ered by  these  records  had  originated  in  dis- 
putes over  business  matters,  and  not  over  politi- 
cal rights;  but  it  came  to  pass  that  Sir  Thomas 
Smith's  party,  in  order  to  accomplish  their 
business  objects,  catering  to  the  national  Court 
party,  were  finally  willing  to  surrender  their 
popular  charter  rights  to  the  crown.  As  Wil- 
liam Canning  expressed  it,  "to  give  in  their 
Charter  and  not  to  contest  with  the  King  about 
the  government,"  as  he  thought  such  a  contest 
must  end  in  their  defeat.  The  party  led  by 
Sir  Edwin  Sandys,  which  controlled  the  Vir- 
ginia courts  during  the  period  of  these  records, 
was  not  willing  to  give  up  their  charter  nor  to 
yield  "  their  liberty  of  governing  themselves  " 
to  the  crown.  The  political  contest  was  really 
between  the  Court  party,  the  advocates  of  an 
imperial  form  of  government  —  the  king's  side, 
and  the  Patriot  party,  the  advocates  of  *'  a  more 
free  form  of  government  —  the  people's  side;" 


STITH'S  HISTORY  OF  VIRGINIA  129 

but  it  would  have  been  folly  for  the  Sandys 
party  to  make  the  issue  directly  with  the  Court 
party.  They  could  only  hope  to  succeed  by 
using  discretion  in  all  ways,  and  their  policy 
was,  as  these  records  show,  to  attack  the  party 
in  their  corporation  which  was  wilHng  to  yield 
to  the  purposes  of  James  I.,  rather  than  the 
Court  party,  or  crown  itself.  Hence  these 
records,  unless  the  conditions  then  obtaining  are 
properly  taken  into  consideration,  produce  the 
impression  that  the  political  contest  was  between 
the  parties  in  the  corporation  led  respectively 
by  Sir  Thomas  Smith  and  Sir  Edwin  Sandys. 
Mr.  Stith  was  evidently  under  this  mistaken  im- 
pression, for  in  his  history,  on  page  330,  he  says : 
*  Although  Captain  John  Smith  was  certainly 
no  friend  to  the  Company,  yet  his  History  is 
much  in  Honour  and  Vindication  of  Sir  Thomas 
Smith  and  his  government.'  The  history  licensed 
by  the  crown  was  in  vindication  of  the  king's 
(James  I.)  government  (not  Sir  Thomas  Smith's), 
and  therefore  it  is  in  accord  with  Sir  Thomas 
Smith's  party  when  that  party  is  in  accord  with 
the  Court  party ;  but  it  is  really  in  opposition  to 
the  management  and  political  purposes  of  the 
body  politic  from  the  beginning,  and  it  is  as  un- 
just to  the  administration  of  Sir  Thomas  Smith 
as  to  that  of  Sandys  and  Southampton.  And  for 
the  aforesaid  reason  these  records  have  some- 
times been  considered  as  evidences  against  the 


130  STITH'S  HISTORY  OF  VIRGINIA 

Sir  Thomas  Smith  administration,  and  therefore 
as  indorsements  of  the  history  licensed  by  the 
crown  for  the  period  prior  to  1618,  rather  than 
as  evidences  in  defense  of  our  original  poHtical 
charter  rights  and  against  the  purposes  of  the 
Court  party  itself. 

Mr.  Stith  praised  "the  Virginia  Company," 
yet  he  regarded  the  annulling  of  the  "Com- 
pany's Charters "  as  "  an  event  certainly  of 
Benefit  and  Advantage  to  the  Country,  as  we 
in  America  find  by  Experience,  that  it  is  better 
to  be  under  a  Royal  government,  than  in  the 
Hands  of  Proprietors,  in  what  shape  or  Manner 
soever."  I  believe  myself  that  everything  may 
have  happened  for  the  best,  and  fallen  on  its 
due  time  ;  but  "  the  Colony  in  Virginia  "  never 
belonged,  in  the  sense  which  Stith  seems  to  have 
supposed,  to  "  the  Company  in  London."  Under 
the  system  projected  under  the  charters  of  1609 
and  1612,  the  proprietors  of  the  Colony  in  Vir- 
ginia were  members  of  a  corporation  and  body 
politic  composed  of  adventurers  and  planters ; 
and  even  when  Mr.  Stith  was  writing  this  opin- 
ion the  vital  principles  of  that  body  were  still 
shaping  our  destiny,  and  were  soon  after  inspir- 
ing the  minds  of  many  of  our  patriotic  people 
to  a  conviction  that  the  time  was  near  at  hand 
when  it  would  be  of  "  Benefit  and  Advantage  to 
the  Country "  to  have  the  government  in  "  the 
hands  of  the  proprietors  "  of  the  country.     This 


STITirS  HISTORY  OF   VIRGINIA  131 

purpose  was  finally  consummated,  and  "we  in 
America  find  by  experience  "  that  it  is  certainly 
of  "  Benefit  and  Advantage  to  the  Country." 

On  pages  36  to  42  of  his  history,  Stith  criti- 
cised adversely  and  placed  a  very  correct  esti- 
mate on  the  form  of  government  designed  for  the 
plantations  in  America  by  James  I.  in  1606- 
1607 ;  but  not  taking  into  consideration  the 
political  conditions  then  obtaining  he  failed  to 
appreciate  the  disastrous  effect  of  royal  politics 
on  the  histories  published  under  the  auspices 
of  the  crown,  and  after  thus  condemning  the 
design  of  James  I.  he  goes  on  to  base  his  history 
of  the  next  ten  years  on  the  contemporary  histo- 
ries pubHshed  in  vindication  of  that  very  form 
of  government.  Then  when  the  censored  story 
meets  the  portion  of  the  corporation's  records 
which  he  had  in  hand  he  goes  back  to  his  first 
view-point  again,  rejects  the  royal  views,  and 
bases  his  history  on  these  records  for  the  last 
seven  years  of  the  period.  Then  he  takes  the 
other  view  again,  and  contends  that  the  charters 
ought  to  have  been  annulled,  and  finally  claims 
that  they  had  never  been  legally  annulled.  He 
changed  his  political  view-point  with  the  evi- 
dence which  he  happened  to  be  using ;  hence  he 
was  sometimes  on  the  side  of  the  Patriot  party, 
then  on  the  side  of  the  Court  party,  and  some- 
times "  at  sea." 

He  paid  no  attention  to  the  political  conditions 


132  STITH'S  HISTORY  OF  VIRGINIA 

controlling  the  case  in  1606-1624,  and  it  was  not 
possible  for  him  to  write  a  correct  account  with- 
out doing-  so.  Although  he  impeached  the  his- 
tory licensed  by  the  crown  "  at  both  ends,"  so  to 
speak,  he  rehed  upon  the  history,  which  he  had 
impeached,  for  his  account  of  events  during 
1607-1617,  the  period  in  which  it  was  peculiarly 
to  the  political  purpose  of  James  I.,  who  con- 
trolled the  press,  and  to  the  personal  interest  of 
his  licensed  agent,  the  historian  w^ho  wrote  the 
book,  to  convey  false  ideas  of  the  movement. 
The  political  point  of  view,  not  only  of  1606- 
1610,  and  1610-1617,  but  of  the  whole  period, 
1606-1624,  was  overlooked  by  Stith,  and  has 
been  misunderstood,  or  not  considered,  by  the 
subsequent  historians  who  have  followed  him. 

Since  1747  the  history  licensed  by  the  crown 
has  continued  to  be  generally  relied  on  for  the 
earher  period,  1606-1617  ;  but  Stith,  rather  than 
Smith,  has  been  followed  as  the  historian  of  the 
later  period,  1618-1624.  Although  Mr.  Stith 
was  a  minister  under  the  crown,  and  did  not 
always  take  the  patriotic  point  of  view,  his  history 
presented  to  the  public  for  the  first  time  the 
charters  to  our  original  body  politic,  together 
with  extended  extracts  from  so  much  of  the 
record  of  that  body  as  to  cause  our  people  to 
become  more  and  more  familiar  with  their  original 
charter  rights ;  and  although  so  much  of  our 
earliest  history  was  still  obscured,  those  rights 
became  more  and  more  sacred  to  them. 


THE  RECORDS  OF  1619-1624  133 

CHAPTER   VII 

AN    ACCOUNT    OF     THE    ORIGINAL     COPIES   WHICH 

HAVE     BEEN      PRESERVED     OF      THE     VIRGINIA 

COURT     RECORDS     FROM     MAY,    1619,    TO    JUNE, 
1624 

I  NOW  think  that  the  copies  used  by  Stith  were 
evidently  the  Danvers  copies  which  had  been  sent 
by  Southampton  to  Titchfield  in  1G24,  and  not 
a  portion  of  the  Ferrar  *  copies  of  all  the  court 
books,  and  all  other  writings  belonging  to  the 
company,'  which  Southampton  gave  to  Sir  Robert 
Killigrew  for  safe  keeping,  as  I  thought  when  I 
wrote  "  The  First  Republic  in  America."  ^ 

These  two  volumes  were  taken  to  Titchfield  for 
preservation  in  the  autumn  of  1624.  Henry 
Wriothesley,  third  Earl  of  Southampton  and  last 
treasurer  of  the  Virginia  Company,  died  soon 
after.  His  son  Thomas,  the  fourth  earl,  inherited 
the  volumes.  As  was  the  case  with  Sir  Edwin 
and  George  Sandys,  John  and  Nicholas  Ferrar, 
and  Sir  John  Danvers,  the  fourth  Earl  of  South- 
ampton became  a  close  friend  to  Charles  I.  It 
is  interesting  to  note  in  this  connection,  first,  that 
the  last  time  Charles  I.  came  to  Little  Giddinjr  he 
came  for  protection,  '  very  privately,  and  in  the 
night  of  May  12,  1646.     Mr.  Nicholas  Ferrar, 

*  Pages  603,  601.     See  also  The  Magazine  of  American  His- 
tory, New  York,  1893,  vol.  xxix.  pp.  371-380. 


i:^  THE  RECORDS  OF  1619-1624 

■who  had  befriended  him  in  the  Parliament  of 
1G24,  had  been  dead  several  years ;  but  having 
an  entire  confidence  in  the  family  he  made  him- 
self known  to  Mr.  John  Ferrar,  who  received 
him  with  all  respect,  conducted  him  to  a  private 
house  at  Coppinford,  where  he  slept,  went  thence 
to  Stamford,  and  thence  to  the  Scotch  army.' 
Second,  that  the  last  time  Charles  I.  came  to 
Titchfield  he  came  to  it  as  a  place  of  refuge  in 
November,  1G47.  This  unfortunate  king  had 
been  a  friend,  to  a  certain  extent  at  least,  to  our 
original  body  politic  at  a  time  when  our  founders 
needed  such  a  friend ;  and  it  may  be  that  during 
this  visit  he  held  these  precious  volumes  in  his 
royal  hands.  He  was  beheaded  on  February  9, 
1649,  and  the  foiu-th  Earl  of  Southampton  was 
"  one  of  the  four  who  were  permitted  to  pay  the 
last  solemn  duties,  in  darkness  and  privacy,  to  the 
royal  remains."  After  the  restoration,  Charles 
II.  invested  the  earl  with  the  Order  of  the  Gar- 
ter, and  appointed  him  to  be  a  member  of  the 
royal  council  for  foreign  plantations.  He  died 
May  26, 1667,  at  Southampton  House,  near  Hol- 
born,  London,  where  the  court  of  the  Virginia 
Corporation  had  frequently  met  in  former  times, 
and  was  buried  at  Titchfield,  in  Hampshire,  where 
these  volumes  were  preserved. 

He  left  no  male  heir,  Elizabeth  Lady  Noel,  his 
eldest  daughter,  inheriting  Titchfield.  His  second 
daughter,  who  married  secondly  the  unfortunate 


THE  RECORDS  OF  1G19-1624  135 

Lord  William  Russell,  is  known  in  history,  to 
"which  her  life  contributed  a  beautiful  page,  as 
"  the  Lady  Rachel  Russell."  Pennant,  in  his 
"  Account  of  London,"  in  his  description  of 
Southampton  House,  gives  a  very  touching  ac- 
count of  Lady  Rachel  and  Lord  William  Russell. 
He  says :  "  The  last  scene  is  beyond  the  power 
of  either  pen  ov  pencil.  In  this  house  they  lived 
many  years.  When  his  lordship  passed  by  it, 
on  the  way  to  execution,  he  felt  a  momentary 
bitterness  of  death  in  recollecting  the  happy  mo- 
ments of  the  place.  He  looked  towards  South- 
ampton House ;  the  tear  started  into  his  eye,  but 
he  instantly  wiped  it  away."  He  was  executed 
in  1683,  and  whether  these  precious  volumes 
were  purchased  by  Colonel  William  Byrd  the 
first  or  second,  it  pleases  me  to  beHeve  that  they 
were  at  times  held  in  the  hands  of  that  noble 
martyr  to  the  liberties  of  his  country,  before  they 
were  brought  to  Virginia. 

Edward  Baron  Noel,  of  Titchfield,  first  Earl 
of  Gainsborough,  died  in  1689 ;  his  son,  Wriothes- 
ley,  the  second  earl,  died  in  1690  without  male 
issue,  and  it  may  be  that  the  library  at  Titchfield 
was  not  sold  until  after  his  death.  I  do  not 
know  when  these  copies  were  brought  over  to 
Virginia.  Mr.  Stith,  in  his  preface,  says  :  "  As 
these  Records  are  a  very  curious  and  valuable 
Piece  of  the  Antiquities  of  our  country,  I  shall  give 
the  Reader  an  Account  of  them,  which  I  received, 


13G  THE  RECORDS  OF  1619-1624 

many  years  ago,  in  conversation  with  Col.  Byrd 
and  Sir  John  Randolph.  I  had  then  no  Thoughts 
of  writing  the  History  of  Virginia,  and  therefore 
took  less  Notice  than  I  otherwise  should  have 
done.  However,  as  I  am  perhaps  the  only  Per- 
son now  hving,  anything  acquainted  with  their 
History  it  will  not  be  improper  to  give  it  to  the 
Reader,  as  I  judge  it  highly  worthy  of  his  know- 
ledge." After  a  description  of  the  two  volumes, 
which  accords  with  Wodenoth's  description  of 
the  Dan  vers  copies,  Stith  goes  on  to  write  :  "This 
copy  was  taken  by  the  Order,  and  for  the  Use  of 
the  Earl  of  Southampton,  the  Company's  Trea- 
surer at  that  tune ;  who,  seeing  how  things  were 
going  with  the  Company,  had  their  Records  thus 
carefully  copied  and  compared,  and  authentically 
attested.^  Whether  his  Lordship  intended  to 
stand  suit  with  the  King  for  the  Rights  and  privi- 
leges of  the  Company,  or  whether  he  did  it  only 
in  vindication  of  his  own  and  the  Company's  repu- 
tation, is  uncertain.  However,  they  were  care- 
fully preserved  in  the  family ;  and  as  the  original 
Court-Books  were  taken  from  the  Company  by 
the  King  and  Privy  Council,  and  never  again 
restored  to  them,  that  I  can  find,  this  is  perhaps 
the  only  copy  now  extant.  After  the  death  of 
that  Earl's  son,  the  Duke  of  Southampton  (the 

1  The  Patriots  had  these  records  copied  and  "  authentically 
attested,"  because  they  believed  that  the  Court  party  would  cor- 
rupt and  falsify  the  history  of  their  past  actions. 


THE  RECORDS  OF  1619-1G24  137 

worthy  partner  in  the  Ministry  with  the  Earl  of 
Chueudon,  aitev  the  Restoration),  which  hap- 
pened in  the  year  1667,  the  late  Col.  Byrd's 
father  [that  is,  Col.  William  Byrd  the  first,  born 
1653,  died  1704],  being  then  in  England,  pur- 
chased them  of  his  Executors  for  sixty  guineas." 

Mr.  Stith,  possibly  because  he  had  not  taken 
careful  notice  in  the  conversation  Avitli  Colonel 
Byrd,  is  certainly  at  fault  in  several  of  the  fore- 
going statements ;  he  does  not  state  exactly  when 
he  thought  these  volumes  were  purchased,  but 
the  inference  is  that  it  was  soon  after  the  earl's 
(not  duke's)  death  in  1667  ;  but  the  Colonel 
Byrd  whom  he  says  was  the  purchaser  was  not 
then  fifteen  years  old.  Mr.  Jefferson  says  the 
purchaser  was  Colonel  William  Byrd  the  second, 
who  was  not  born  until  1674.  Stith  evidently 
wrote  from  memory  of  a  conversation  not  care- 
fully noted ;  Jefferson  must  have  known  what 
Stith  had  published,  and,  I  do  not  suppose, 
would  have  contradicted  Mr.  Stith  without  suf- 
ficient cause. 

Colonel  William  Byrd  the  first  (1653-1704) 
came  to  Virginia  about  1673.  As  his  grand- 
father, Colonel  Thomas  Stegge  or  Stagg,  had 
been  an  active  adherent  of  the  Parliament  in 
1651,  and  as  he  was  an  active  adherent  of  Bacon 
the  rebel  in  1676,  it  may  be  inferred  that  he  was 
personally  in  full  sympathy  with  the  view  point 
of  these  records.     But  he  married  Mary,  daugh- 


138  THE  RECORDS   OF  1619-1624 

ter  of  Colonel  "Warham  Horsmanden,  a  ^eat- 
graiidson  of  Catherine  (sister  of  Sir  Thomas) 
Smith ;  hence  they  contained  many  statements 
which  his  son,  Colonel  William  Byrd  the  second 
(1674-1744),  probably  resented.  As  it  was  cei*- 
tainly  the  second  Colonel  Byrd  who  first  commu- 
nicated these  records  to  Mr.  Stith,  his  conflicting 
filial  interests  may  have  had  opposing  effects  on 
his  mind,  which  may  have  been  transmitted  by 
him  to  Stith,  and  this  may  account  in  part  for 
Stith's  conflicting  opinions  between  the  influence 
of  these  records  and  the  influence  of  the  history 
licensed  by  the  crown. 

Some  time  after  1747,  Colonel  William  Byrd 
the  third  (1728-1777)  lent  these  records  to  Colo- 
nel Richard  Bland,  who  had  also  copies  of  some 
of  the  documents  collected  by  Sir  John  Ran- 
dolph and  Mr.  Richard  Hickman,  and  these 
books  furnished  Bland  with  much  of  the  mate- 
rial on  which  he  based  "  An  Inquiry  into  the 
Rights  of  the  British  Colonies,"  published  in 
1766.  Mr.  Hugh  Blair  Grigsby,  in  his  "  Vir- 
ginia Convention  of  1776,"  says  :  "  What  John 
Selden  was  in  the  beginning  of  the  troubles  in 
the  reign  of  Charles  the  First  to  the  House  of 
Commons,  was  Richard  Bland  to  the  House 
of  Burgesses  for  thirty  years  during  which  he 
was  a  member.  AU  durino;  that  time  on  all 
questions  touching  the  rights  and  privileges  of 
the  colony  he  was  the  undoubted  and  truthful 


THE  RECORDS  OF   1G19-1624  139 

oracle."  Thomas  Jefferson  rejxarded  Colonel 
Bland  as  "  the  wisest  man  south  of  James  River." 
He  was  a  great-grandson  of  Richard  Bennet  and 
of  John  Bland  senior,  members  of  the  Patriot 
party  in  our  original  body  politic ;  a  grand- 
nephew  of  John  Bland  junior  (who  advocated 
our  original  charter  rights  before  Charles  I., 
the  Commonwealth,  and  Charles  II.),  and  of 
Edward  Bland,  who  in  1652  dedicated  his  "  Dis- 
covery of  New  Brittaine  "  to  Sir  John  Dan  vers, 
the  regicide,  and  a  cousin  to  Giles  Bland,  who 
was  hanged  in  1676  for  his  part  taken  in  Bacon's 
Rebellion. 

Colonel  Richard  Bland  died  October  26, 1776, 
his  library  was  sold  in  January  following  and 
purchased  by  Thomas  Jefferson.  Colonel  Wil- 
liam Byrd  the  third  died  January  1,  1777,  and 
his  library  was  sold  in  April  following  to  Isaac 
Zane.  Mr.  Jefferson  in  a  letter  to  Colonel  Hug-h 
P.  Taylor,  written  on  October  4,  1823,  after 
stating  that  the  two  volumes  of  Virginia  Court 
Records  which  had  been  used  by  Stith  were  then 
in  his  library  at  Monticello,  added  that  these 
volumes  had  been  bought  at  the  sale  of  the  Earl 
of  Southampton's  library  by  "  Doctor  Byrd,  of 
Westover,"  that  is.  Colonel  William  Byrd  the 
second  (1674-1744);  but  he  does  not  give  the 
date  of  the  purchase.  Mr.  Jefferson  then  de- 
scribes the  way  by  which  they  came  into  his 
own  possession.     "  These  volumes  happened  at 


140  UNDER  GEORGE  III.,   17G0-1776 

the  time  of  the  sale  [January,  1777]  to  have 
been  borrowed  by  Colonel  Richard  Bland,  whose 
library  I  bought,  and  with  this  they  were  sent 
to  me.  I  gave  notice  of  it  to  Mr.  Zane  [who 
bought  Colonel  Byrd's  library  in  April,  1777] ; 
but  he  never  reclaimed  them." 

These  two  volumes  came  to  the  Library  of 
Congress,  where  they  now  (1900)  are,  from  Mr. 
Jefferson's  Hbrary,  not  with  the  mass  of  his 
books  in  1815,  but  after  his  death,  between  the 
years  1826  and  1830.  These  original  copies  of 
the  records  of  the  original  of  the  body  j)olitic  of 
this  nation  are  the  most  precious  volumes  pre- 
served in  the  Repubhc. 

CHAPTER  VIII 

UNDER   GEORGE    III.,    1760-1776 

After  the  restoration  of  the  government  of 
England  to  the  crown  in  1660,  the  original  char- 
ter rights  of  Virginia  were  more  or  less  violated 
or  denied  by  all  kings,  and,  as  Thomas  Jefferson 
well  says,  "especially  by  George  III." 

In  1761  the  Council  and  Burgesses  of  Virginia 
sent  the  celebrated  petition  to  George  III.,  memo- 
rial to  the  House  of  Lords,  and  remonstrance  to 
the  House  of  Commons.  In  1765  the  House  of 
Burgesses  of  Virginia  proclaimed  the  independ- 
ence of  the  people  of  Virginia  from  taxation  by 


UNDER  GEORGE  III.,   1760-177G  141 

the  Parliament  of  Great  Britain.  And  these  acts 
mark  the  beginning  in  the  political  mother  of 
the  colonies  of  the  final  contest  for  the  charter 
rights  of  the  original  of  the  body  pohtic  of  this 
nation. 

Mr.  Jefferson  says:  "Till  the  beginning  of 
our  Revolutionary  disputes  we  had  but  one  press 
in  Virginia  ;  and  that  having  the  whole  business 
of  the  government,  and  no  competitor  for  pubHc 
favor,  nothing  disagreeable  to  the  governor  could 
find  its  way  into  it.  We  [the  Patriot  party] 
procured  William  Rind  to  come  from  Maryland 
to  pubhsh  a  free  paper."  The  first  issue  of  this 
paper  appeared  in  May,  1766.  The  gag  was 
now,  at  last,  being  taken  off  the  press  in  Virginia, 
and  the  colony  was  soon  in  open  '*  rebeUion " 
against  the  crown. 

Notwithstanding  the  fact  that  the  crown  had 
been  able  to  suppress  or  to  obscure  the  real  his- 
tory of  our  origin  as  a  nation  to  such  an  extent 
that  the  information  of  our  Revolutionary  lead- 
ers in  Virginia  regarding  the  movement  (espe- 
cially before  1619)  was  very  incomplete,  there  is 
ample  evidence  that  they  studied  carefully  the 
various  manuscript  copies  of  the  records,  and  such 
other  documents  of  the  foundation  period  — 
charters,  ordinances,  orders,  constitutions,  court 
proceedings,  etc.  —  as  their  patriotic  forefathers 
had  been  able  to  preserve  from  destruction  by 
the  crown  officials;  and  it  is   certain  that  they 


142  UNDER  GEORGE  m.,   1760-1776 

derived  inspiration  from  them  in  their  determi- 
nation to  secure  for  themselves  and  for  their 
posterity  the  charter  rights  which  had  been 
granted  in  perpetuity  to  the  founders  who,  at  the 
expense  of  their  own  blood  and  treasure,  unas- 
sisted by  the  crown  of  England,  had  secured  this 
country  for  them.  Thus  the  political  effect  of 
Stith's  history  and  of  these  documents  reveal  the 
wisdom  of  the  crown  of  England  —  from  that 
point  of  view  —  in  suppressing  so  earnestly  the 
true  history  of  our  political  origin,  and  in  keep- 
ing for  so  long  the  printing  press  out  of  Virginia. 
For  this  history  and  these  records  were  certainly 
instrumental  in  opening  the  eyes  of  our  people, 
and  thus  clearing  the  way  for  our  Revolution 
which  secured,  finally,  the  charter  rights  —  the 
political  principles  —  upon  which  this  nation  was 
founded. 

The  Virginia  courts,  which  had  first  managed 
the  business  at  the  capital  of  the  corporation  in 
London,  had  been  sujDpressed  by  the  crown,  and 
in  their  room  the  colony  had  been  under  the 
management  of  various  commissions,  committees 
of  the  Privy  Council,  boards  of  trade,  etc. ;  but 
the  government  in  the  country,  as  granted  to  the 
settlers  and  citizens  of  the  country,  had  remained 
very  nearly  on  the  lines  instituted  therefor  in  the 
original  "seminary  of  sedition."  When  our  fore- 
fathers began  the  final  struggle  for  their  charter 
rights,  the  successors  to  the  old  Virginia  courts 


UNDER  GEORGE  III.,   17G0-1776  143 

in  London  were  suppressed  by  them,  and  in  their 
room  "  the  management  of  the  business "  was 
resumed  by  another  popular  court,  which  the 
crown  probably  regarded  as  another  "  Seminary 
for  a  seditious  Parliament,"  which  met  on  Sep- 
tember 5,  1774,  at  the  new  capital,  Philadelphia, 
within  the  ancient  bounds  of  the  original  corpo- 
ration. The  members  of  this  political  body  began 
their  work  of  redress,  not  by  initiating  new  ideas, 
but  by  simply  standing  upon  the  monuments 
which  had  been  erected  by  their  forefathers  in 
the  past,  and  claiming  the  rights  which  had  de- 
scended to  them  from  the  founders.  Although 
the  Declaration  of  Independence  was  attended 
with  a  decisive  change  in  the  condition  of  the 
new  states  in  regard  to  their  external  dependence 
on  the  crown  of  Great  Britain,  their  interior 
organization  underwent  but  httle  change.  New 
governments  were  constituted  in  the  several  states 
to  take  the  place  of  those  which  had  fallen  with 
the  colonial  regime ;  but  they  were  formed  upon 
the  model  of  those  which  previously  existed  and 
which  had  been  originated  under  the  authority 
derived  from  the  charters  of  1609,  1612,  and 
1629,  and  based  on  the  "  English  constitution  as 
taken  and  interpreted,  in  the  most  ample  and 
beneficial  manner,"  to  the  political  bodies  which 
founded  the  colonies. 

The  patriots  of  our  Revolution  did  not  profess 
to  be  planting  the  seed  of  our  popular  course  of 


144  UNDER  GEORGE  III.,   1760-1776 

government.  They  were  protecting  the  great 
tree,  which  had  grown  from  that  seed  in  this 
country,  from  the  axe  of  the  royal  woodmen. 
Thomas  Jefferson  in  his  autobiography,  in  refer- 
ence to  the  debate  of  June  8-10,  1776,  over 
a  declaration  of  independence,  says :  "  On  the 
other  [the  Patriot]  side,  it  was  urged  by  J. 
Adams,  Lee,  Wythe,  and  others  .  .  .  that  the 
question  was  not  whether  by  a  Declaration  of 
Independence  we  should  make  ourselves  what  we 
are  not,  but  whether  we  should  declare  a  fact 
which  already  exists : 

"  That,  as  to  the  people  or  Parliament  of  Eng- 
land, loe  had  always  been  indei^endent  of  them, 
their  restraints  on  our  trade  deriving  efficacy 
from  our  acquiescence  [consent']  only,  and  not 
from  any  rights  they  possessed  of  imposing  them, 
and  that  so  far,  our  connection  had  h^en  federal 
only,  and  was  now  dissolved  by  the  commence- 
ment of  hostilities." 

The  following  passage,  which,  for  diplomatic 
reasons,  was  omitted  from  our  Declaration  of 
Independence,  deserves  especial  notice  in  con- 
sidering the  source  of  our  political  origin.  Mr. 
Jefferson  wrote  :  "  We  have  reminded  them  [our 
British  brethren]  of  the  circumstances  of  our 
emigration  and  settlement  here ;  .  .  .  that  these 
were  effected  at  the  expense  of  our  own  blood 
and  treasure  unassisted  by  the  wealth  or  the 
strength  of  Great  Britain  ;  that  in  constituting 


UNDER  GEORGE  III.,  1760-1776  145 

indeed  our  several  forms  of  government,  we  had 
adopted  one  common  king,  thereby  laying  a 
foundation  for  perpetual  league  and  amity  with 
them ;  hut  that  submission  to  their  Parliament 
was  no  part  of  our  Constitution.  .  .  .  We  might 
have  been  a  free  and  a  great  people  together ; 
but  a  communication  of  grandeur  and  of  free- 
dom, it  seems,  is  below  their  dignity.  Be  it  so, 
since  they  will  have  it.  The  road  to  happiness 
and  to  glory  is  open  to  us  too.  We  will  tread  it 
apart  from  them." 

Mr.  Edward  Rider,  a  member  of  the  Patriot 
party  in  the  Virginia  Corporation,  who  had  set- 
tled a  plantation  in  Virginia,  was  bold  enough  to 
tell  the  Court  party  in  1623,  even  after  James  I. 
had  determined  to  annul  the  charters  of  the  Vir- 
ginia Corporation,  that  "  there  was  a  material 
difference  between  the  Spanish  and  English  plan- 
tations. For  the  Spanish  colonies  were  founded 
by  the  kings  of  Spain  [that  is,  by  the  agents,  or 
officials  of  the  kings],  out  of  their  own  treasury 
and  revenues,  and  they  maintain  the  garrisons 
there,  together  with  a  large  Navy,  for  their  use 
and  defence;  whereas  the  English  plantations 
had  been  at  first  settled  and  since  supported  at 
the  charge  [expense]  of  private  adventurers  and 
planters," — that  is,  by  the  original  body  politic. 

The  outline  which  I  have  given  from  1625  to 
1776  is  sufficient  to  show  that  the  political  prin- 
ciples which  inspired  Su-  Edwin  Sandys  and  the 


146  UNDER  GEORGE  III.,  1760-1776 

Patriots  of  1608-1609  to  determine  to  obtain 
the  charter  rights  which  would  enable  them  to 
establish  in  America  a  place  of  refuge  for  their 
posterity  from  "  the  absolute  tyranny  then  aimed 
at  in  Great  Britain  by  the  king  and  Court  party," 
never  died  out  in  Virginia.  I  will  add  that  an- 
cestors of  nearly  all  of  her  Revolutionary  leaders 
were  among  the  men  of  genius  who  petitioned 
for  the  charters  to  the  Virginia  Corporation  of 
1609  and  1612,  or  among  the  planters  who  inau- 
gurated the  reform  movement  in  America  during 
1610-1618,  or  among  the  members  of  the  First 
House  of  Burgesses  of  1619,  or  of  the  General 
Assembly  which  asserted  their  charter  rights  be- 
fore the  royal  commissioners  in  1624 ;  and  it  is 
evident  that  the  political  purposes  which  inspired 
these  forefathers  continuing  as  an  inheritance  to 
influence  their  posterity  finally  sustained  Thomas 
Jefferson  and  the  Patriots  of  1775-1776,  when 
they  asserted  that  it  was  their  opposition  to  the 
king's  direct  object  to  obliterate  our  charter  rights 
and  to  establish  an  absolute  tyranny  over  these 
states,  which  caused  them  to  determine  to  secure, 
by  a  complete  separation  from  the  crown,  the 
rights  formerly  granted  under  the  broad  seal  of 
England  in  perpetuity  to  the  original  of  the  body 
politic  of  this  nation. 

In  this  connection  it  is  very  interesting  to  find 
among  the  honorable  minority  in  the  House  of 
Lords,  who  were  favorable  to  American  liberty 


UNDER  GEORGE  III.,  1760-1776  147 

in  1774-75,  the  dukes  of  Portland,  of  Devon- 
shire, and  of  Northumberland,  each  of  whom 
descended  from  Henry  Wriothesley,  the  third 
Earl  of  Southampton,  and  last  treasurer  of  the 
Virginia  Corporation ;  as  is  also  the  fact  that 
the  lord  mayor,  aldermen,  and  livery  of  London, 
-whose  predecessors  had  nourished  the  infant  at 
birth,  now  delivered  in  behalf  of  the  sturdy 
youth  an  address  and  remonstrance  to  the  king, 
marked  by  such  manly  freedom  as  to  bring  down 
upon  them  an  indecent  royal  rebuke  for  giving 
encouragement  to  rebellion. 

CHAPTER  IX 

OF   BOUNDARY   RIGHTS 

In  order  to  bring  out  the  cause  of  the  historic 
wrong  more  clearly,  I  have  given  a  brief  outline 
of  the  contest  over  the  popular  charter  rights. 
For  the  same  reason  I  will  now  call  attention  in 
a  very  brief  way  to  the  contest  over  the  vast 
boundary  rights. 

The  Court  party  asserted  in  the  controversies 
of  1623-1624  that  in  annulling  "  the  company's 
charters  there  was  no  other  intention  than  merely 
and  only  the  reforming  of  the  company's  popu- 
lar course  of  government ; "  but  this  was  not 
true.  James  I.  not  only  wished  to  annul  the 
political  rights  which  he  had  granted  in  perpe- 


148  OF  BOUNDARY  RIGHTS 

tiiity,  but  under  the  pretext  that  the  country  had 
been  secured  under  his  charter  of  1606,  and  that 
the  enterprise  under  the  popular  charters  had 
failed,  he  was  determined  to  take  for  the  crown 
the  large  boundary  rights  which  he  had  granted 
in  perpetuity  to  a  corporation  and  body  politic, 
and  which  had  been  secured  by  that  body  at  the 
expense  of  their  own  blood  and  treasure  unas- 
sisted by  the  revenues  of  the  crown. 

It  was  a  matter  not  only  of  personal  pride  to 
James  I.,  but  also  of  great  pecuniary  as  well  as 
political  importance  to  the  crown  to  annul  the 
charters  of  1609  and  1612,  and  to  maintain  that 
the  colony  and  the  bounds  thereof  had  been 
established  by  the  company  under  the  royal 
charter  of  1606.  James  I.  died  before  carrying 
out  the  colonial  plans  which  he  was  formulating. 
Charles  I.  finally  yielded  to  the  planters  many  of 
their  original  political  rights  ;  but  "  being  of  the 
same  judgment  that  his  late  dear  father  was  "  in 
this  matter,  he  was  determined  to  carry  out  the 
purpose  of  his  father  against  the  large  boundary 
rijrhts. 

In  1629,  under  the  pretext  that  the  Virginia 
colony  had  been  secured  under  the  royal  charter 
of  1606,  Charles  I.  granted  to  Sir  Robert  Heath 
and  others  lands  south  of  the  southern  boundary 
of  the  grant  under  that  charter ;  and  in  June, 
1632,  he  granted  to  Lord  Baltimore  lands  north 
of  the  northern  boundary  of  the  Virginia  grant 


OF  BOUNDARY  RIGHTS  149 

under  that  charter.  Virginians  at  once  sent  re- 
monstrances against  the  infractions  of  their 
boundary  rights,  continued  to  protest  against 
the  injustice  of  these  grants  as  well  as  against 
all  subsequent  such  hke  grants,  and  continued 
to  affirm  that  the  definite  bounds  were  secured 
under  the  charter  of  1609.  And  these  bound- 
ary rights  were  never  yielded  by  Virginians 
until  the  adoption  of  the  Virginia  Constitution 
on  July  5,  1776,  when  Virginia  ceded,  released, 
and  forever  confirmed  [not  to  the  crown  of  Eng- 
land, but]  to  the  jjeople  of  Maryland,  Pennsyl- 
vania, North  and  South  Carolina  [her  sister  colo- 
nies, now  joined  with  her  in  the  final  contest  for 
charter  rights]  the  territories  contained  within 
their  charters;  but  the  western  and  northern 
extent  of  Virginia  was  still  "  to  stand  in  all 
other  respects  as  fixed  by  the  Charter  of  King 
James  I.  in  1609,  and  by  the  public  treaty  of 
peace  between  the  Courts  of  Britain  and  France 
in  the  year  1763." 

It  is  true  that  other  nations  encroached  upon 
this  territory,  but  their  title  thereto  was  not  ac- 
knowledged by  our  people.  Our  rights  were 
defended  by  Washington  in  the  French  and 
Indian  war,  by  Andrew  Lewis  in  Dunmore's  war, 
and  by  George  Rogers  Clarke  in  the  Revolution. 
It  is  true  that  by  the  treaty  of  1783  Great 
Britain  only  ceded  the  portion  east  of  the  Mis- 
sissippi, because  the  rest  was  claimed  by  France 


150  OF  BOUNDARY   RIGHTS 

and  Spain  ;  but  our  people  still  claimed  the  ori- 
ginal North  and  South  Virginia  boundary  as  "  the 
territory  of  the  United  States  west  of  the  Missis- 
sippi," and  they  did  not  rest  until  they  secured 
it  —  in  good  measure.  Jefferson  paid  France  the 
nominal  price  of  about  two  cents  per  acre  for  her 
claim  in  1803  ;  Tyler  annexed  Texas  in  1845  ; 
and  Scott  and  Taylor  took  the  balance  from 
Mexico  in  1846-1848, — since  when  it  has  been 
under  a  popular  course  of  government  such  as 
the  first  proprietors  wished  to  have  inaugurated 
therein. 


PART  IV 

An  outline  of  what  has  been  done  both  towards  perpetu- 
ating and  towards  correcting  the  historic  wrong  since  the 
loyal  political  point  of  view  was  reversed  in  1776. 


CHAPTER  I 

THOMAS    JEFFERSON  AS  A  LABORER  IN  THE  FIELD 
OF    ORIGINAL    RESEARCH 

I  HAVE  shown  in  Part  I.  that  James  I.  resolved 
to  obliterate  the  popular  course  o£  government 
which  the  Patriot  party  was  establishing  in 
America ;  and  in  Part  II.  that  he  was  also  re- 
solved to  suppress  the  real  history  of  the  move- 
ment under  which  this  reform  government  was 
being  instituted  in  America. 

In  Part  I.  and  Part  III.  I  have  outlined  the 
constant  contest  —  sometimes  active,  sometimes 
dormant,  but  never  dead  —  between  the  Court 
,and  Patriot  parties,  over  these  political  rights 
ifrom  1609  to  1776.  I  believe  that  the  Patriot 
party  —  the  advocates  of  a  more  free  government 
—  were  always  in  the  majority  in  Virginia;  but  the 
Court  party,  nearly  always,  had  an  absolute  con- 
trol over  the  evidence,  the  printing  press,  and 
the  histories,  both  in  England  and  Virginia,  to 
such  an  extent  that  although  the  original  polit- 
ical rights  were  absolutely  secured  to  the  body 
politic  by  the  Revolution  of  1774-1783,  the 
loyal  view-point  of  our  earliest  history  really  re- 


il 


154       JEFFERSON'S   ORIGINAL   RESEARCHES 

versed,  and  both  cases  decided  in  this  country 
by  the  proper  tribunal,  the  people ;  and  by  the 
court  of  last  resort,  the  arbitrament  of  arms, 
ajrainst  the  ideas  and  contentions  of  the  Court 
party  as  expressed  in  their  royal  edicts,  orders, 
reports,  and  in  the  histories  licensed  by  the 
crown  —  the  historical  rig-hts  of  our  founders 
•were  not  secured.  The  crown  had  suppressed 
the  authentic  evidences  at  once  so  completely, 
and  had  continued  to  exercise  such  an  absolute 
control  over  the  records  and  the  press  in  Virginia 
for  so  long,  that  no  accounts  of  our  origin  were 
available  to  the  public,  which  gave  a  full  and 
fair  idea  thereof.  And  thus  it  came  to  pass 
that  through  the  medium  of  the  histories  pub- 
lished under  the  auspices  of  the  crown,  which 
had  always  been  available,  we  have  continued  to 
rob  our  founders  of  their  historic  rights  even 
under  the  Republic. 

I  now  wish  to  give  an  outline  of  what  has 
been  done  in  the  matter  of  this  historic  wrong 
since  1776. 

Probably  no  man  deserves  more  credit  for  ser- 
vices rendered  his  country  than  Thomas  Jeffer- 
son, and  among  these  services  his  efforts  to  col- 
lect and  preserve  our  ancient  records,  and  thus 
to  rescue  our  past  history  from  oblivion,  were  cer- 
tainly not  the  least.  William  Waller  Hening,  the 
editor  of  "  The  Statutes  at  Larjre  ...  of  Vir- 
ginia,"  was  under  paramount  obligations  to  him, 


JEFFERSON'S  ORIGINAL  RESEARCHES       155 

and  in  acknowledging  these  obligations  in  1809 
he  wrote  as  follows :  "  It  is  a  melancholy  truth 
that,  though  we  have  existed  as  a  nation  but 
little  more  than  200  years,  our  pubHc  offices  are 
destitute  of  official  documents.  It  is  to  the 
pious  care  of  individuals  only  that  posterity 
will  be  indebted  for  those  lasting  monuments 
which  perpetuate  the  oppressions  of  the  kings  of 
England  and  the  patient  suffering  of  the  colo- 
nists." He  continued,  to  the  effect  —  '  When 
we  review  the  arbitrary  conduct  of  James  I.,  the 
equally  unjust  proceedings  of  Charles  I.  and  his 
successors,  till  resistance  became  indispensable, 
we  shall  cease  to  wonder  that  so  few  evidences 
of  their  turpitude  have  been  suffered  to  remain. 
What  was  left  undone  by  the  predecessors  of 
George  III.  was  consummated  during  his  reign. 
All  the  papers  except  a  few  fragments  within  the 
reach  of  his  myrmidons  were,  with  more  than  a 
savage  barbarity  of  the  Goths  and  Vandals,  com- 
mitted to  the  flames.'  Hening  then  goes  on  to 
say  that  "  Thomas  Jefferson  has  contributed  more 
than  any  other  individual  to  the  preservation  of 
our  ancient  laws." 

As  I  have  frequently  said,  the  especial  objects 
of  the  crown  in  the  case  treated  of  had  been  : 
First,  to  stamp  out  the  political  principles  which 
the  Virginia  Corporation  first  planted  in  America. 
The  part  taken  by  Jefferson  in  righting  this 
wrong  is  well  known.     Second,  to  obliterate  the 


156       JEFFERSON'S  ORIGINAL  RESEARCHES 

true  history  of  the  first  planting  of  those  princi- 
ples —  of  our  origin  as  a  nation.  The  part  taken 
by  Jefferson  towards  righting  this  wrong  may 
not  be  so  well  known,  but  it  was  decided.  He 
was  as  active  in  securing  and  preserving  evidences 
in  justification  of  our  Revolution  as  George 
Chalmers  was  in  collecting  and  publishing  the 
evidences  of  the  Court  party  to  show  that  our 
Revolution  was  an  uncalled-for  revolt ;  and  al- 
though the  crown  had  been  confiscating  and 
destroying  the  class  of  evidence  which  Jefferson 
wished  to  find,  for  one  hundred  and  fifty  years, 
he  collected  and  was  able  to  preserve  more  of  it 
than  any  other  individual  in  the  Republic. 

About  the  year  1722,  Sir-  John  Randolph,  a 
royal  official,  but  a  native  of  Virginia,  with  the 
assistance  of  Mr.  Richard  Hickman,  clerk  of  the 
secretary's  office,  began  collecting  copies  of  the 
important  papers  from  our  oldest  records  then 
preserved  in  the  colony.  "  From  which  evi- 
dences," said  Stith,  "  Sir  John  purposed  to  write 
a  Preface  to  our  Laws  and  therein  to  give  an  His- 
torical Account  of  our  Constitution  and  Govern- 
ment ;  but  was  prevented  from  prosecuting  it  to 
effect  by  his  many  and  weighty  Publick  Employ- 
ments." Some  of  the  old  records  preserved  by 
Sir  John  Randolph  Avere  given  by  his  son,  the 
Hon.  Peyton  Randolph,  to  Jefferson  before  the 
Revolution  began.  The  Hon.  Peyton  Randolph, 
the  first  president  of  our  Congress,  died  in  Phila- 


JEFFERSON'S  ORIGINAL  RESEARCHES       lo7 

delpliia  on  October  22,  1775.  His  library  was 
appraised  on  January  5,  1776,  at  £250,  and  a 
large  portion  of  it  was  soon  after  purchased  from 
his  executors  by  Thomas  Jefferson — including 
about  ten  manuscript  volumes,  mostly  acts  of 
Assembly,  etc.,  but  a  good  deal  else,  of  an  his- 
torical character ;  one  book  especially,  containing 
evidences  of  the  Virginia  Corporation  of  1609- 
1624.  All  of  these  books  are  now  preserved 
in  the  Library  of  Congress. 

Besides  the  copies  (2  vols.)  of  the  Virginia 
Court  records  (1619-1624)  used  by  Stith  and 
already  sketched,  Jefferson  purchased  at  least 
tioo  other  manuscript  volumes  of  the  company's 
records  with  the  Bland  library  in  1777,  — first, 
a  large  folio  volume,  lettered  "  Virginia  Com- 
pany Papers  and  Records,  1621-1625  "  —  which 
Mr.  Jefferson  has  characterized  in  a  note  thus : 
"  Letters,  Proclamations,  Patents,  in  1622, 1623  ; 
Correspondence,  1625.  Transactions  in  Council 
and  Assembly  —  their  petitions  and  his  Majesty's 
answer."  The  writing  in  this  volume,  like  that 
in  the  two  volumes  of  the  Virginia  Court  re- 
cords, is  in  the  ancient  handwriting  of  the  time 
of  James  I.^  Second.  A  smaller  volume  of  cop- 
ies in  the  plain  handwriting  of  the  18th  century, 

^  There  are  copies  in  the  plain  handwriting  of  the  eighteenth 
century  of  these  three  volumes  in  the  library  of  "  The  Virginia 
Historical  Society  "  at  Richmond,  Va.  They  were  preserved  by 
John  Randolph,  of  Roanoke,  and  were  probably  originally  copied 
by  Mr.  Hickman  for  Sir  John  Randolph. 


158         JEFFERSON'S  NOTES  ON  VIRGINIA 

lettered,  "  Virginia  Papers,  1606  to  1683  ;  "  and 
marked  in  Mr.  Jefferson's  handwriting,  "  never 
printed." 

There  is  more  of  the  regular  record  of  our 
original  body  politic  to  be  found  in  five  of  the 
above  mentioned  volumes  —  which  were  preserved 
for  about  fifty  years  by  Mr.  Jefferson,  before  they 
passed  to  the  Library  of  Congress,  where  they 
now  are — than  has  yet  been  found  in  any  other 
repository  of  evidences. 


CHAPTER  II 
Jefferson's  "notes  on  Virginia" 

It  is  interesting  and  important  to  consider  the 
circumstances  under  which  these  "  Notes  "  were 
written.  After  Jefferson's  escape  from  the  troops 
of  Captain  McLeod,  of  Tarleton's  command,  at 
Monticello,  on  June  4,  1781,  he  went  to  his  seat, 
"  Poplar  Forest,"  in  Bedford  County,  where,  rid- 
ing over  his  farm,  he  was  thrown  from  his  horse 
and  seriously  injured.  While  thus  confined  he 
occupied  himself  with  answering  the  queries  of 
Mons.  De  Marbois,  which  answers  were  first  pub- 
lished in  Paris,  France,  in  1784,  under  the  title, 
"  Notes  on  the  State  of  Virginia; "  and  this  was 
the  first  book  bearing  on  our  subject  published 
after  the  Revolution. 

As  illustrating  the  effect  of  politics  even  on 


JEFFERSON'S  NOTES  ON  VIRGINIA  159 

our  Revolutionary  history,  it  may  be  noted  that 
Jefferson's  pohtical  opponents  asserted  that  he 
Avas  thrown  from  his  horse  on  Carter's  JNToun- 
tain,  Albemarle,  in  a  headlong  flight  from  Tarle- 
ton,  and  not  after  he  had  arrived  at  "  Poplar 
Forest."  Jefferson  himself  refers  to  these 
charges  in  the  "  Advertisement "  to  a  subse- 
quent edition  of  the  "  Notes,"  wherein  he  writes: 
"  The  subjects  are  all  treated  imperfectly ;  some 
scarcely  touched  on.  To  apologize  for  this  by 
developing  the  circumstances  of  the  time  and  place 
of  their  composition,  would  be  to  open  wounds 
which  have  already  bled  enough."  Only  yester- 
day I  read  in  a  Virginia  paper  one  of  these  ex 
parte  tales  or  "  campaign  lies,"  which  still  sur- 
vives, to  the  effect  that  '  Jefferson  was  thrown 
from  his  horse  while  riding  through  the  blind 
paths  of  Carter's  Mountain  ;  taken  to  the  house 
of  Mr.  Thomas  Farrar,  on  Rockfish  River,  where 
he  remained  two  weeks ;  and  was  then  carried 
to  a  cave  in  the  bluff  below  Scottsville,  Albemarle 
County,  Virginia,  where  he  lay  concealed  for 
months,  being  supplied  with  food  by  his  brother, 
who  lived  across  James  River,  at  Snowden.' 
Fortunately  for  Jefferson's  memory,  his  political 
opponents  did  not  have  an  absolute  control  over 
the  evidences,  and  there  remains  ample  evidence 
to  refute  these  stories,  even  if  it  is  impossible  to 
suppress  them. 

Although    Jefferson,    w^hen    he   wrote    these 


160         JEFFERSON'S  NOTES  ON  VIRGINIA 

"Notes"  in  1781  and  1782,  had  secured  but 
little  more  of  the  evidence  regarding  the  colonial 
movement  of  1606-1624  than  Stith  had  when 
writing  his  history  in  1746,  he  took  a  more  uni- 
formly patriotic  view  of  the  event.  He  did  not 
have  enouo-h  of  the  evidences  of  the  Patriots  to 
enable  him  to  restore  their  obliterated  history ; 
but  he  felt  to  the  full  the  immortal  principles 
which  had  inspired  them.  He  had  not  one  of 
the  pubhcations  of  the  managers  of  the  business, 
and  comparatively  few  of  their  records,  with 
the  exception  of  those  after  1618.  In  his  reply 
to  Query  XXIII.  he  mentions  only  the  four 
printed  histories  which  I  have  noticed, — Smith's, 
Beverley's,  Keith's,  and  Stith's.  His  "  Notes," 
having  been  written  at  "  Poplar  Forest,"  in  Bed- 
ford County,  and  his  library  being  "at  Monti- 
cello,"  in  Albemarle,  may  account  for  some 
omissions.  In  his  "  Chronological  Catalogue  of 
American  State  Papers,"  he  does  not  mention 
all  that  were  known  to  him ;  but  he  mentions 
enouofh  to  show  the  character  of  the  evidences 
on  which  his  own  opinions  had  been  based. 
Evidently  depending  on  his  memory  in  reply  to 
Query  XIII.,  he  says  :  ^  James  I.  executed  "  a 
grant  to  Sir  Thomas  Gates  and  others,  hearing 
date  the  9th  of  March,  1607^  He  evidently 
had  on  his  mind  and  really  referred  to  three 
documents,  copies  of  each  of  which  were  then  at 

1  Richmond  Edition,  1853,  p.  119. 


JEFFERSON'S  NOTES  ON   VIRGINIA  IGl 

Monticello  :  First,  "  a  grant  to  Sir  Thomas 
Gates  and  others,"  of  April  10  (o.  s.),  IGOG ; 
second,  the  King's  Articles,  Instructions  and 
Orders  of  November  20  (o.  s.),  1006  ;  and  third, 
the  King's  Ordinance  and  Constitution,  "  bear- 
ing date  the  9th  of  March,  1G07 ; "  the  first 
being  the  royal  charter  of  1G06 ;  the  second 
and  third  contain  the  original  form  of  govern- 
ment for  the  colonies  designed  by  James  I. 
Mr.  Jefferson  then  goes  on  to  say :  "  Of  this 
grant  [these  grants?],  however,  no  particular 
notice  need  be  taken,  as  it  was  [they  were  ?] 
superseded  by  letters  patent  of  the  same  King 
of  May  23  [o.  s.],  1609."  He  then  gives  an 
outline  of  his  reading^  of  this  first  charter  to  our 
original  body  politic,  and,  after  referring  to  the 
charter  of  1612,  says :  "  In  pursuance  of  the 
authorities  given  to  the  Company  by  these  Char- 
ters, and  more  especially  of  that  part  in  the 
Charter  of  1609,  which  authorized  them  to  estab- 
lish a  form  of  government,  they  on  the  21:th  of 
July  [August  3d  n.  s.],  1621,  by  charter 
under  their  common  seal,"  proceeded  to  estab- 
lish a  liberal  form  of  government  which  Jeffer- 
son outlines.^  The  reference  was  to  the  constitu- 
tion brought  by  Wyatt  to  Virginia,  in  October, 
1621 ;  but  as  stated  in  the  land  grant  from  Sir 
Francis  Wyatt  to  Thomas  Hothersall,  dated 
February  5,  1622  (n.  s.),  once  recorded  in  the 

^  Richmond  Edition,  1853,  p.  120. 


162  JEFFERSON'S   NOTES  ON  VIRGINIA 

Virginia  Land  Office  Records,  Book  No.  1,  page 
1  (now  torn  out),  our  government  was  estab- 
lished on  "  The  Great  Charter  of  Laws  and 
Orders,"  issued  by  the  Virginia  Quarter  Court 
under  authority  derived  from  the  charters  of 
1609  and  1612,  bearing  date  at  London,  Novem- 
ber 28  (n.  s.),  1618,  and  instituted  in  Virginia 
under  Sir  George  Yeardley,  in  1619. 

Under  the  impression,  it  seems,  that  the  Vir- 
ginia Corporation  and  body  poHtie  was  an  ordi- 
nary company  he  gives  his  idea  of  the  dissolu- 
tion of  "the  company,"  as  follows  :^  "  The  king 
and  the  company  quarrelled,  and  by  a  mixture  of 
law  and  force  the  latter  were  ousted  of  all  their 
rights,  without  retribution,  after  having  expended 
£100,000  [say  $2,500,000  present  value]  in 
establishing  the  colony,  without  the  smallest  aid 
from  the  government.  King  James  suspended 
their  powers  by  proclamation  of  July  15  [o.  s.], 
1624,  and  Charles  I.  took  the  government  into 
his  own  hands.  Both  sides  had  their  partisans  in 
the  colony ;  but,  in  truth,  the  people  of  the  colony 
in  general  thought  themselves  little  concerned 
in  the  dispute.  There  being  three  parties  inter- 
ested in  these  several  charters,  what  passed  be- 
tween the  first  and  second  it  was  thought  could 
not  affect  the  third.  If  the  king  seized  on  the 
powers  of  the  company,  they  only  passed  into 
other  hands,  without  increase  or  diminution,  while 

'  Richmond  edition,  1853,  p.  121. 


JEFFERSON'S  NOTES  ON  VIRGINIA  103 

the  rights  of  the  people  remained  as  they  were. 
But  they  did  not  remain  so  long.  The  northern 
parts  of  their  country  were  granted  away  to  the 
Lords  Baltimore  and  Fairfax,"  etc.  Jefferson  evi- 
dently knew  of  the  contests  of  the  people  over 
land  rights,  but  did  not  know  of  their  earlier 
contests  for  their  political  rights.  As  I  have 
said,  Jefferson  did  not  have  enough  of  the  evi- 
dence of  the  Patriots  to  enable  him  to  restore 
their  obliterated  history,  and  the  idea  conveyed 
by  him  of  "  the  dissolution  "  is  not  accurate. 
We  are  now  more  familiar  with  the  "quarrel," 
or  contest,  between  the  crown  and  the  Virsrinia 
Corporation.  We  know  that  the  people  in  the 
colony  were  vitally  concerned  in  the  dispute,  and 
without  doubt  would  have  felt  it  more  deeply  if 
James  I.  had  lived  longer.  "  The  three  parties," 
to  whom  Jefferson  alludes,  were  the  king  (the 
crown),  the  adventurers  in  England  (whom  he 
regarded  as  the  company),  and  the  planters  in 
Virginia ;  but  the  last  two  really  composed  one 
body  politic  (the  people),  who  had  secured  the 
country  at  their  own  expense,  and  of  these  two 
the  planters  were  more  directly  concerned  in  the 
political  rights  than  the  adventurers.  They  well 
knew  the  value  of  those  rights,  and  continued  to 
contend  for,  and  to  petition  for,  them  from  1G21 
to  1776,  when  they  determined  to  secure  them, 
and  did  so. 

Mr.  Jefferson's  imperfect  treatment  of  some 


164  INFLUENCE  OF  PAST  POLITICS 

phases  of  this  movement  was  owing  to  the  cir- 
cumstances of  the  place  and  time  of  the  composi- 
tion of  these  "  Notes,"  as  well  as  to  the  lack  of 
authentic  evidences ;  but  taking  all  things  into 
consideration  his  ideas  regarding  the  case  of  our 
founders  were  remarkably  correct. 

CHAPTER  III 

AN  OUTLINE  OF  WHAT  WAS  DONE  UNDER  THE 
REPUBLIC  FROM  1784  TO  1861  TOWARDS  PER- 
PETUATING THE  HISTORIC  WRONG  COMMITTED 
BY  JAMES  I.  AND  THE  COURT  PARTY  IN  1624; 
AND  WHAT  WAS  DONE  TOWARDS  CORRECTING 
THAT    WRONG 

As  nearly  all  of  the  numerous  books,  in  the 
premises,  published  from  1784  to  1861,  were 
based  on  the  crown  evidences,  it  will  not  be  pos- 
sible to  give  here  more  than  the  merest  outline 
of  what  has  been  done  since  1784  toward  perpet- 
uating the  ideas  of  our  origin  as  a  nation  which 
were  disseminated  under  the  auspices  of  the 
crown.  Portions  of  the  works  of  Captain  John 
Smith,  the  historian  licensed  by  the  crown,  were 
made  still  more  available  by  reprints  issued  in  the 
Republic  as  early  as  1819,  and  repeatedly  there- 
after in  1833,  1837,  1838,  1845,  etc.  Over  a 
dozen  laudatory  biographies  of  this  historian,  and 
histories  "  too  numerous  to  mention,"  have  been 


INFLUENCE  OF  PAST  POLITICS  105 

published  in  this  country  since  the  Revohition, 
all  based  largely  on  his  books,  and  of  course  all 
of  these  —  reprints,  biographies,  and  histories  — 
have  aided  in  perpetuating  the  purpose  of  James  I. 
and  the  Court  party  to  obliterate  the  real  history 
of  the  original  of  the  body  politic  of  this  nation. 
It  is  not  my  purpose  to  review  these  books  ;  they 
must  be  judged  by  their  fruit. 

The  first  book  published  in  England  under  the 
crown ,^  written  even  partially  from  the  political 
view  point  of  the  Patriot  party,  was  Peckard's 
"  Life  of  Nicholas  Ferrar,"  printed  in  1790,  after 
the  colonies  had  secured  their  charter  rights. 
It  was  based  on  the  memoirs,  already  mentioned, 
written  by  John  Ferrar  about  1655,  providentially 
preserved,  and  handed  down  in  manuscript  from 
father  to  son.  The  old  deputy  gave  them  to  his 
son  John  in  1657,  who  left  them  to  his  son  Ed- 
ward, who  gave  them  to  his  son  Edward,  who  died 
in  1769,  after  having  given  them  to  his  son-in- 
law,  the  Rev.  Peter  Peckard,  who  finally  pub- 
lished them. 

In  1823  "The  New  Life  of  Virginia,"  which 
was  first  published  in  1612,  was  republished  by 
the  Massachusetts  Historical  Society,  being,  I  be- 
lieve, the  first  reprint  in  the  Republic  of  one  of 
the  original  publications  of  the  managers  of  the 
business.     In  June,  1839,  "  The  Southern  Liter- 

*  Wodenoth's  book  was  published  under  the  Commonwealth  iu 
1C51. 


1G6  INFLUENCE  OF  PAST  POLITICS 

ary  Messenger,"  Richmond,  Va.,  published  John 
E-olfe's  "  Relation  to  James  I.  of  the  State  of  Vir- 
ginia in  1607-1  GIG,"  from  the  copy,  preserved  in 
the  Royall  MSS.,  which  had  passed  into  the  Brit- 
ish Museum,  being,  I  believe,  the  first  one  of  the 
original  manuscript  accounts  by  a  contemporary 
manager  of  the  business  in  the  colony  printed  in 
Virginia. 

"  Nova  Britannia,"  first  pubHshed  in  1609,  was 
first  reprinted  in  this  country  by  Peter  Force  in 
1836.  "  A  True  Declaration,"  of  1610,  and  "  A 
Declaration,"  of  1620,  were  first  reprinted  by 
Peter  Force  in  1844.  Thus,  after  the  ideas  of 
the  Court  party  had  been  impressed  on  the  minds 
of  our  people  for  over  two  hundred  years,  a  few 
of  the  publications  of  the  managers  became  avail- 
able to  the  public  in  the  United  States. 

Anderson's  "  History  of  the  Colonial  Church," 
published  in  England  in  1845,  gave  some  ex- 
tracts from  Wingfield's  "  Discourse  of  Virginia;  " 
the  whole  was  first  printed  in  this  country  by 
Mr.  Charles  Deane,  of  Cambridge,  Massachusetts, 
in  1859.  A  portion  of  Strachey's  manuscript, 
"  Historic  of  Travaile  into  Virginia  Britannia," 
and  a  letter  from  the  Lord  De  la  Warr,  gover- 
nor of  Virginia,  written  at  Jamestown,  July  17, 
1610,  were  printed  for  the  Hakluyt  Society,  Lon- 
don, 1849.  Birch's  "Court  and  Times  of 
James  the  First,"  published  in  London  in  1849, 
contains  many  contemporary  letters  referring  to 


INFLUENCE  OF  PAST  POLITICS  107 

this  movement,  which  had  not  been  available  to 
the  public  before.  An  account  of  the  first  Gen- 
eral Assembly  (August  9-14,  1(319)  ever  con- 
vened in  America  was  published  for  the  first  time 
in  1857  in  the  "  Collections  "  of  the  New  York 
Historical  Society.  The  official  reports  of  tliis 
most  important  Assembly  were  probably  destroyed 
(they  have  not  been  found)  both  in  England  and 
in  Virginia ;  but  under  Providence  Mr.  John 
Pory  sent  an  account  of  the  proceedings  by  Mar- 
maduke  Rayner,  the  pilot  of  a  Dutch  man-of- 
war  (a  ship  under  commission  from  the  Prince 
of  Orange),  which  left  Virginia  in  the  autumn 
of  1619,  to  Sir  Dudley  Carleton,  then  in  Hol- 
land. Carleton  —  he  was  created  Viscount  Dor- 
chester in  1628  —  died  in  1632,  and  his  papers 
finally  passed  in  the  18th  century  into  the  Pub- 
lic Record  Office  in  London,  where  this  document 
is  now  preserved. 

Documents  discovered  (and  published,  and  dis- 
covered, and  not  yet  published)  since  1850  are 
too  numerous  to  mention  particularly.  Tlie 
examples  given  are  sufficient  to  illustrate  the 
various  ways  by  which  evidences  have  been  provi- 
dentially preserved. 

In  1856  the  State  of  New  York  published  in 
the  first  volume  of  documents  relating  to  the 
colonial  history  of  that  colony  several  papers 
which  gave  to  the  public  the  first  idea  of  the 
real  interest  taken  in  the  first  EngHsh  colony  l>y 


168  INFLUENCE  OF  PAST  POLITICS 

the  United  States  of  the  Netherlands.  In  1858 
Lord  De  la  Warr's  "Relation,"  of  1611,  was 
privately  reprinted  in  London. 

In  1857-1859  the  British  government  pub- 
lished the  "  Calendar  of  the  State  Papers,  Domes- 
tic Series,"  of  the  reign  of  James  I.  (1603-1625) 
in  four  volumes;  and  in  1862,  the  "Calendar 
of  State  Papers,  Colonial  Series,  East  Indies," 
etc.  (1513-1616).  Each  of  these  five  volumes 
locate  papers  having  reference  to  the  English 
colonies  in  America. 

In  1860,  the  "  Calendar  of  State  Papers,  Colo- 
nial Series  "  (1574-1660),  -which  relate  entirely 
to  the  American  colonies,  was  published.  This  is 
a  very  important  volume.  Many  of  these  papers 
had  come  to  the  state  paper  department  of  the 
Public  Record  Office  of  Great  Britain  from  vari- 
ous repositories  of  crown  officials  or  offices,  and 
therefore  had  been  preserved  under  the  ausjnces 
of  the  crown  from  the  first ;  but  many  others 
have  come  into  the  Record  Office  or  the  British 
Museum  since  1625  from  repositories  of  a  pri- 
vate character.  The  documents  listed  in  these 
calendars  and  in  the  various  catalogues  of  the 
British  Museum  relative  to  our  subject,  have  to 
be  analyzed  with  great  care.  Many  of  them 
were  issued  directly  from  the  crown  —  Privy 
Council,  royal  courts,  commissions,  etc.  Many 
of  a  political  character  were  written  by  or  to 
the  king,  the  members  of  his  Privy  Council,  or 


INFLUENCE  OF  PAST  POLITICS  1G9 

other  royal  officials,  and  thus  many  are  as  jjurti- 
san  m  character  and  unjust  to  the  vis  vitce  of  our 
foundation  and  to  the  intentions  of  our  found- 
ers as  is  the  history  licensed  hy  the  crown.  But 
some  of  the  evidences  —  and  especially  am()n<'' 
those  which  have  come  in  since  1625  from  other 
sources  than  the  crown  repositories  —  are  non- 
partisan, valuable,  and  reliable  evidences. 

In  1860  there  was  printed  for  the  Camden 
Society  in  England  the  "Letters  from  George 
Lord  Carew  to  Sir  Thomas  Roe,"  1615-1617, 
which  conveyed  to  this  English  ambassador  at 
the  court  of  the  Great  Mogul  some  of  the  latest 
Virginia  news.  In  the  same  year  there  was 
pubhshed  at  Albany,  New  York,  a  reprint  of 
Hamor's  "A  True  Discourse,"  etc.  (1615);  and 
in  the  "  Transactions  and  Collections  of  the 
American  Antiquarian  Society,"  vol.  iv.,  "  New- 
port's Discoveries  in  Virginia"  (1607),  three 
papers,  edited  by  E.  E.  Hale,  A.  M.,  and  Wing- 
field's  "  A  Discourse  of  Virginia,"  edited  by 
Charles  Deane,  A.  M. 

A  decided  interest  was  developing  in  our  ear- 
liest history,  which  might  have  brought  forth 
good  fruit  long  ago,  save  for  the  obstructions 
incidental  to  the  civil  war  and  to  the  pohtical 
influences  resulting  therefrom. 


170         INFLUENCE  OF  PRESENT  POLITICS 


CHAPTER  IV 

AN  OUTLINE  OF  THE  ORIGIN  OF  THE  SO-CALLED 
"JOHN  SMITH  controversy"  FROM  1860  TO 
1885 

In  my  effort  to  correct  the  historic  wrong  com- 
mitted under  James  I.,  I  have  given  a  particular 
account  of,  or  reprints  of,  many  of  the  prints 
and  manuscripts  written  during  1606-1616,  and 
found  since  1865,  in  "  The  Genesis  of  the  United 
States  "  and  "  The  First  Republic  in  America," 
and  in  the  latter  book  I  have  referred  to  many 
written  after  1616  which  have  been  found  both 
before  and  since  1865.  Therefore  it  is  not 
necessary  to  continue  the  outline  of  what  has 
been  done  towards  perpetuating  or  correcting 
the  historic  wTong  of  1624  since  our  civil  war 
(1865).  But  it  is  necessary  to  give  an  outline 
of  the  beginning  of  the  so-called  "  John  Smith 
controversy." 

Wingfield's  "  A  Discourse  of  Virginia " 
(1608),  edited  by  Mr.  Charles  Deane,  of  Cam- 
bridge, Massachusetts,  was  first  printed  in  Bos- 
ton in  1859,  and  afterwards  included  in  the  col- 
lections of  the  American  Antiquarian  Society 
printed  in  1860.  In  his  notes,  Mr.  Deane  ques- 
tioned Smith's  veracity  as  to  "  the  Pocahontas 
incident."     He  was  soon  replied  to  by  Ex-Gov- 


INFLUENCE  OF  PRESENT  POLITICS  171 

ernor  Wyndham  Robertson,  of  Virginia  (a  de- 
scendant from  Pocahontas),  in  a  paper  on  "  The 
Marriage  of  Pocahontas,"  read  before  "  The  Vir- 
ginia Historical  Society,"  and  afterwards  pub- 
Hshed  in  "  The  Virginia  Historical  Reporter," 
vol.  ii.  part  i.  pp.  67-87  (Richmond,  1860),  and 
in  "The  Historical  Magazine"  (New  York),  for 
October,  1860.  And  the  controversy  thus  be- 
gun has  been  gomg  on  ever  since. 

Of  course  little  was  done  in  the  matter  of  past 
history  during  the  civil  war  (1861-1865).  In 
1866  Mr.  Charles  Deane  had  Smith's  "  A  True 
Relation  of  Virginia "  (1608)  reprinted,  and  in 
his  notes  thereon  he  again  questioned  the  accu- 
racy of  Smith's  account  of  his  life  having  been 
saved  by  Pocahontas.  Mr.  Deane's  so-called 
"  attack  on  Captain  John  Smith  "  is  almost  con- 
fined to  this  incident.  In  most  other  thinjrs  he 
was  disposed  to  accept  Smith's  estimate  of  him- 
self and  of  others ;  he  regarded  Smith  as  "  the 
master  spirit  of  the  colony  of  Virginia,"  and, 
giving  no  consideration  to  the  political  conditions 
obtaining  in  1624,  was  disposed  to  accept  Smith's 
account  of  the  Virginia  movement  from  1606  to 
1624. 

Mr.  Henry  Adams  continued  the  controversy 
in  the  "  North  American  Review  "  for  January, 
1867,  sustaining  Mr.  Deane. 

Since  Stith  published  his  history  in  1747  nearly 
all  historians  of  Virginia   during   the  period  — 


172  INFLUENCE  OF  PRESENT  POLITICS 

1606-1G24  —  have  rejected  some  of  the  more 
important  ideas  conveyed  by  Smith's  history. 
While  accepting  Smith's  account  implicitly  for 
the  period  prior  to  1618,  they  rejected  much  of 
it  after  that  date.  While  accepting  his  praise 
of  himself  at  all  times,  they  generally  rejected  or 
smoothed  over  his  harsh  criticism  of  others.  In 
1869  the  Rev.  Edward  D.  Neill  pubHshed  his 
"  Virginia  Company  of  London,"  in  which  he 
reversed  the  old  treatment  of  the  case  by  reject- 
ing Smith's  praise  of  himself,  and  accepting  much 
of  his  harsh  criticism  of  others.  Smith's  veracity 
can  be  tested  as  well  by  his  account  of  events 
after  1618  as  before ;  as  well  by  his  references 
to  others  as  by  his  references  to  himself.  Both 
the  old  treatment  of  the  case  and  Mr.  Neill's  are 
self-contradictory.  Neither  side  had  given  due 
consideration  to  the  political  conditions  then  ob- 
taining, and  consequently  the  reform  movement 
and  its  managers  had  suffered  accordingly  on 
both  sides.  It  was  now  evident  that  there  was 
something  radically  wrong  somewhere  with  our 
earliest  history.  The  controversy  was  no  longer 
confined  to  the  Pocahontas  incident ;  it  became 
broader  and  broader  as  the  inquiry  progressed. 
Hon.  W.  W.  Henry,  of  Virginia,  took  up  the 
discussion  in  an  article  in  defense  of  Smith,  pub- 
lished in  "  Potter's  American  Monthly  "  in  1875. 
The  controversy  was  continued  in  "  A  History 
of  American  Literature"  (1607-1676),  in  1878, 


INFLUENCE   OF  PRESENT   POLITICS  IT.i 

by  Professor  Moses  Coit  Tyler,  who  rejects  Smith's 
account  of  being  saved  by  Pocahontas,  but  de- 
fends him  in  many  other  respects.  Edward 
Eggleston  and  LilHe  Egcrleston  Seelye  entered 
the  controversy  in  1879,  in  an  extended  account 
of  Smith,  published  under  the  title  of  "  Poca- 
hontas," in  which  "  the  incident "  is  accepted,  as 
it  were,  with  a  proviso.  In  the  same  year  IMr. 
John  Fiske  came  to  the  defense  of  Smith  in  a 
lecture  at  University  College,  London,  England. 
The  matter  was  also  considered,  2^ro  and  con, 
about  this  time,  by  Hon.  George  Bancroft,  Bryant 
and  Gay,  Hon.  Henry  Cabot  Lodge,  Henry  Ste- 
vens, General  Sir  J.  Henry  Lefroy,  and  others. 

In  1881  Mr.  Charles  Dudley  Warner  published 
*A  Study  of  Smith's  Life  and  Writings,'  in 
which  he  did  not  accept  Smith  at  his  own  esti- 
mate of  himself.  Considering:  the  facts  that  Mr. 
Warner  did  not  have  all  the  evidences  in  the  case 
before  him,  and  that  he  did  not  take  into  consid- 
eration the  effect  of  politics  on  the  case,  his  esti- 
mate of  Smith  and  of  his  writings  was  probably 
as  near  correct  as  could  be  expected.  But  thougli 
he  did  not  accept  Smith  at  his  own  estimate,  he 
was  too  much  disposed  to  accept  others  at  Smith's 
estimate  of  them. 

On  February  24,  1882,  Hon.  W.  W.  Henry 
delivered  an  address  before  the  Virginia  Histori- 
cal Society  on  "  The  Settlement  at  Jamestown, 
with  particular  reference  to  the  late  attacks  upon 


174         INFLUENCE  OF  PRESENT  POLITICS 

Captain  John  Smith,Pocahontas,  and  John  Rolf  e." 
Mr.  Henry's  address  was  largely  based  on  mis- 
taken ideas  derived  from  crown  evidences.  He 
thought  that  Smith's  history  had  been  written 
at  the  instance  of  the  Virginia  Company  of  Lon- 
don ;  that  it  was  accepted  as  the  standard  history 
of  the  colony  from  its  first  appearance ;  that  for 
more  than  two  hundred  and  fifty  years,  "  if  we 
except  Thomas  Fuller,"  no  one  had  discredited 
Smith  until  the  year  1860,  when  Mr.  Charles 
Deane,  of  Massachusetts,  did  so.  As  a  matter  of 
fact,  the  history  was  not  written  at  the  instance 
of  the  company,  and  it  is  manifest  that  the  Patriot 
party  could  never  have  accepted  this  "  history," 
licensed  by  the  crown  in  1624,  as  a  real  history 
of  their  enterprise.  "  Nequid  non  veri  audeaf, 
nequid  veri  non  audeat.  The  great  task  for  an 
historian  is  the  ascertainment  of  truth,  which 
when  once  found  he  dare  not  conceal  and  be  true 
to  his  calling ; "  and  it  has  always  been  incum- 
bent on  historians  to  be  certain  that  the  history 
which  the  Court  party  licensed  was  not  impeached 
by  the  records  which  the  Court  party  suppressed, 
before  they  regarded  the  censored  story  as  reli- 
able authority,  or  considered  it  as  a  real  history. 
Although  Mr.  Deane  was,  I  believe,  the  first 
modern  historian  to  question  Smith's  veracity  as 
to  the  Pocahontas  incident.  Smith's  history  had 
really  been  impeached,  and  the  author's  veracity 
questioned,  more  or  less,  by  every  record  of  the 


INFLUENCE  OF  PRESENT  POLITICS  nr, 

Virginia  Company  which  had  been  found,  and  ])y 
every  historian  of  Virginia  since  Stith. 

Mr.  Henry  gave  no  consideration  to  the  past 
poHtics,  which  really  controlled  the  history  as 
well  as  most  of  the  evidence  which  he  was  rely  in"- 
upon  ;  yet  he  showed  that  he  knew  the  power  of 
such  influence  by  appealing  to  sectional  politics 
and  setting  in  motion  that  prejudice  in  support 
of  his  argument.  An  appeal  to  present  preju- 
dices in  a  question  of  over  two  hundred  and  fifty 
years  ago  is  really  a  confession  of  judgment, 
and  it  is  more  apt  to  be  made  for  the  purpose  of 
concealing  than  for  revealing  historic  facts;  but 
many  people  are  more  apt  to  be  influenced  by 
prejudices  than  by  facts,  and  therefore  these  pre- 
judices have  been  appealed  to  by  some  of  the 
advocates  of  the  licensed  historian  in  this  contro- 
versy ever  since.  I  had  been  making  a  study  of 
the  ease  of  our  founders  for  some  time,  when  Mr. 
Henry's  address  appeared.  I  was  not  prepared 
to  enter  the  discussion,  but  I  did  not  wish  to  see 
a  sectional  matter  made  of  this  important  histori- 
cal question,  and  I  protested  against  that  mode 
of  treating  the  case  in  "  The  Richmond  Dispatch" 
of  March  9,  1882. 

Mr.  J.  A.  Doyle,  in  his  "  English  Colonies  in 
America,"  published  in  1882,  treated  the  ques- 
tion very  much  as  Deane,  Palfrey,  Tyler,  and 
some  others  had  done.  He  rejected  the  Poca- 
hontas   incident,    regarded    other    portions    of 


176  INFLUENCE  OF  PRESENT  POLITICS 

Smith's  story  as  untrue  or  extravagant,  and  yet 
took  a  favorable  view  of  Smith's  character. 

In  1883  "  The  adventures  and  discourses  of 
Captain  John  Smith  .  .  .  newly  ordered  by 
John  Ashton,"  appeared,  in  which  Smith's  whole 
story  is  accepted  as  true  and  fustianized  upon  by 
Ashton.  John  Esten  Cooke's  "  Virginia,"  was 
also  published  this  year.  Mr.  Cooke  devotes 
about  145  pages  to  the  plantation  of  Virginia 
during  1606-1624  ;  giving  about  27  pages  per 
annum  to  the  period  of  the  king's  government, 
1607-1609,  and  about  4  pages  per  annum  to 
the  period  of  the  corporation  and  body  politic, 
1610-1624.  He  defended  Smith  very  warmly, 
but  his  account  is  largely  based  on  evidences 
licensed  by  the  crown,  and  he  gave  no  consider- 
ation to  the  effect  of  politics  on  these  evidences. 
He  regarded  James  I.  as  a  narrow  minded,  ob- 
stinate man,  of  little  ability ;  yet  he  wrote  the 
earher  portion  of  his  history  almost  entirely  on 
the  evidences  of  the  licensed  historians  of 
James  I. 

In  1884  Mr.  Edward  Arber,  in  his  "  EngHsh 
Scholar's  Library,"  published  a  complete  edition 
of  Captain  John  Smith's  works.  Mr.  Arber 
gives  some  other  evidences,  and  mentions  many 
more ;  but  evidently  based  his  opinions  almost 
enthely  on  the  "  Works  "  which  he  was  editing; 
had  a  very  strong  reliance  on  their  historic  value, 
and  a  great  admiration  for  the  author.     Conse- 


INFLUENCE  OF  PRESENT  POLITICS  177 

quently  he  had  no  idea  of  the  special  importance 
of  the  movement  his  author  pretended  to  he  de- 
scribinji". 

Mr.  Arber  gave  no  consideration  to  the  politi- 
cal conditions  which  controlled  the  publications 
he  was  reprinting ;  but  if  he  had  done  so,  as  a 
loyal  subject  of  the  crown  of  Great  Britain,  he 
would  naturally  have  been  more  apt  to  take  the 
view  of  the  history  licensed  by  the  crown,  than 
would  a  loyal  advocate  of  the  popular  course 
of  government,  the  history  of  the  institution 
of  which  in  this  country  the  crown  wished  to 
obliterate.  He  seems  to  have  been  under  the 
impression  that  the  question  as  to  the  veracity  of 
Smith's  history  depended  solely  on  the  accuracy 
of  the  Pocahontas  incident,  and  that  too  much 
had  been  made  of  that  Pocahontas  matter. 

It  is  not  in  the  scope  of  this  book  to  continue 
the  outline  of  "  the  John  Smith  controversy"  — 
or  rather,  the  controversy  over  the  treatment  of 
our  foundation  and  founders  under  the  auspices 
of  James  I.  and  the  Court  party  —  down  to  the 
present  time  ;  but  in  the  interest  of  the  task 
which  I  have  undertaken  it  was  necessary  to  call 
attention  to  the  important  fact  that  since  the 
civil  war,  in  order  to  support  the  history  hcensed 
by  the  crown,  and  thus  perpetuate  the  original 
historic  wrong,  an  appeal  has  been  made  to  the 
influence  of  sectional  politics  (which  has  abso- 
lutely no  bearing  on  the  veracity  of  Smith's  his- 


178  AN  EXPLANATION 

tory),  and  that  through  this  influence  the  advo- 
cates of  the  history  Ucensed  by  the  crown  have 
exercised  almost  as  absolute  a  control  over  our 
earliest  history  in  Virginia  under  the  Republic  as 
the  Court  party,  through  the  influence  of  past 
politics,  formerly  exercised  under  the  crown. 

CHAPTER  V 

A  PERSONAL  EXPLANATION  REGARDING  MY  OWN 
WORK  IN  THE  FIELD  OF  OUR  EARLIEST  HIS- 
TORY, DURING  1876-1900 

My  own  work  in  the  field  of  our  earliest  his- 
tory has  been  so  frequently  misunderstood  and 
misrepresented  that  it  is  necessary  for  me  to  ex- 
plain it  more  fully  than  I  have  yet  done. 

I  have  always  taken  an  interest  in  our  his- 
tory, and  I  read  carefully  the  various  articles 
and  books  in  the  so-called  "  John  Smith  contro- 
versy," as  they  came  to  my  hands;  but  I  was 
not  fully  satisfied  with  any  of  them.  Goethe 
says  that  "  In  the  works  of  man,  as  in  those  of 
nature,  it  is  the  intention  which  is  chiefly  worth 
studying."  I  determined  to  look  into  the  mat- 
ter for  my  own  information,  and  in  1876- 
1877  I  made  an  independent  study  of  the  case 
of  our  founders,  as  I  found  it  in  books.  This 
study  convinced  me  that  there  was  something 
radically  wrong  somewhere  with  our  earliest  his- 


AN  EXPLANATION  179 

tory  as  it  had  been  published.  In  the  course  of 
my  study  the  partisan  character  of  the  "history" 
became  evident  to  me ;  my  faith  iu  the  liouorable 
"  intention  "  of  the  work  of  our  founders,  at  iirst 
weak,  had  grown  stronger  and  stronger,  while 
my  former  behef  in  the  personal  disinterestedness 
and  purity  of  the  "  intention  "  of  Captain  John 
Smith's  published  works  grew  less  and  less  until 
it  vanished,  and  it  became  evident  to  me  that 
the  contemporary  histories  gave  a  false  idea  of 
the  founding  and  of  the  founders  of  my  country. 
In  the  books  which  I  had  been  studying,  the 
purpose  of  the  crown  to  obliterate  the  facts  had 
been  so  completely  carried  out  that  I  could  not 
say  what  the  true  history  was  ;  but  I  was  con- 
vinced that  Smith  did  not  give  the  true  history. 
I  did  not  know  what  had  caused  Smith's  history 
to  be  accepted  in  the  first  instance,  or  for  so 
long  after,  as  history ;  but  I  was  convinced  that 
a  ofreat  historic  wrong-  had  been  done  the  real 
founders  of  our  country  by  those  who  wrote  it 
and  published  it  as  history,  and  by  those  who 
had  continued  to  accept  it  as  such.  The  task 
seemed  to  me  to  be  a  very  important  one,  and  a 
very  proper  one  for  a  Virginian  to  undertake ; 
therefore  I  determined  to  undertake  it  —  to  go 
regularly  to  work  and  try  to  find  out  exactly  in 
what  the  historic  wrong  consisted,  and  the 
causes  of  it ;  to  correct  the  wrong  and  to  remove 
the  causes  of  it,  if  I  could. ^ 

'  See  Preface  to  The  First  Eepuhlic  in  America,  p.  iv. 


180  AN  EXPLANATION 

I  began  to  labor  in  the  field  of  original  re- 
search in  1878;  I  retired  from  active  business 
on  account  of  deafness  in  1880,  and  then  under- 
took my  task  in  earnest.  Since  1882  I  have 
written  from  time  to  time  sundry  articles  for 
sundry  magazines  and  newspapers,  which  reveal 
my  views  on  the  questions  as  those  views  devel- 
oped. 

In  1890  I  published  in  "  The  Genesis  of  the 
United  States  "  the  first  fruits  of  my  long  re- 
search. The  chief  value  of  this  work  lies  in 
the  fact  that  it  is  especially  devoted  to  giving 
copies  of,  or  references  to,  the  original  evidences 
written  during  1606-1616,  and  information  re- 
lative to  the  members  of  the  body  politic  of 
that  period,  and  in  the  fact  that  it  is  the  first 
book  published  under  the  Republic  with  the  inten- 
tion of  restoring  to  that  body  the  honors  which 
they  had  always  been  deprived  of  in  our  his- 
tories. In  continuing  my  research  and  study, 
after  1890,  I  saw  that  the  movement  was  a  po- 
litical one,  and  that  I  was  mistaken  in  some  of 
the  opinions  which  I  had  given  expression  to  in 
the  book  —  especially  in  the  biographies.  This 
caused  me  to  reconsider  the  case,  and  thus  finally 
to  locate  correctly  the  causes  of  my  errors.  And 
it  is  now  important  for  me,  in  the  interest  of  my 
task,  to  give  an  explanation  of  these  errors  of 
opinion. 

So  much  concealment  of  facts  and  dissemina- 


AN   EXPLANATION  181 

tion  of  false  ideas,  by  those  controlling  the  evi- 
dences, had  obtained  for  so  lon<^,  and  naturally 
so  much  confusion  had  followed,  that  altliou«rli 
I  knew  an  historic  wrong  had  been  committed, 
although  I  had  made  a  careful  study  of  the 
case,  had  located  some  of  the  errors  of  omission 
and  of  commission,  and  some  of  the  sources  of 
the  wrong,  I  had  not  located  all  of  them ;  con- 
sequently I  did  not  fully  understand  the  case 
myself.  I  had  failed  (as  every  one  else  had  pre- 
viously done)  to  give  due  consideration  to  the  in- 
fluence of  imperial  poUtics  on  the  history  of  this 
popular  movement.  I  had  also  failed  to  con- 
sider properly  the  absolute  control  over  the  evi- 
dences, in  print  and  in  manuscript,  possessed  by 
the  crown.  And  the  importance  of  giving  due 
consideration  to  these  things  in  these  premises 
cannot  be  overestimated. 

It  is  true  that  I  protested  against  Smith's  his- 
tory ;  but  I  did  so  because  I  knew  that  a  criti- 
cism of  his  peers  and  a  eulogy  of  a  man  com- 
piled by  himself,  or  his  friends,  was  not  really 
history,  I  had  given  no  consideration  to  the 
important  political  facts  that  the  book  had  been 
licensed  under  the  crown ;  had  conformed  with 
the  political  purposes  of  the  Court  party,  and 
was  not  only  not  history,  but  was  ex  iKirte  evi- 
dence of  a  very  objectionable  kind.  I  had  held 
Smith  and  his  friends  solely  and  personally  re- 
sponsible for   the   wrong   done  by  his  history. 


182  AN  EXPLANATION 

So  far  from  having  implicated  James  I.  and  the 
Court  party  in  any  way  in  the  matter,  I  had 
looked  upon  them  as  the  great  friends  of  the 
whole  movement,  and  had  regarded  the  royal 
manuscript  evidences  —  written  by  the  kmg,  by 
his  Privy  Councillors  and  other  royal  of&cials, 
and  by  others  to  the  king  and  to  the  royal 
ofiicials  —  as  being  official  and  entirely  reliable 
evidences,  when  as  a  matter  of  fact  these  evi- 
dences are  ex  i^arte^  and  almost  entirely  in 
accord  Avith  the  political  purposes  of  the  Court 
party  to  conceal  or  obscure  —  rather  than  to  give 
—  any  facts  favorable  to  the  political  purposes 
of  the  opponent  Patriot  party. 

I  was  also  mistaken  in  thinking  that  religious 
influence  (in  the  contest  then  going  on  between 
the  Church  of  England  and  the  Church  of 
Rome)  was  the  chief  original  cause  of  the  his- 
toric wronff.  I  did  not  overestimate  this  influ- 
ence  in  the  premises,  but  unfortunately  I  did  not 
consider  the  most  important  influence  at  all. 
The  paramount,  original,  and  sustaining  cause  of 
the  wrong  was  without  doubt  imperial  politics ; 
but  church  and  state  were  then  so  close  as  to  be 
almost  inseparable.  The  officials  of  both  church 
and  state  were  active  in  confiscating  the  evi- 
dences of  the  Virginia  body  politic  after  that 
body  had  been  condemned  by  the  crown,  and 
in  disseminating  the  histories  of  the  acts  of  that 
body  which   had  been  licensed  by  the  crown. 


AN  EXPLANATION  183 

And  the  cause  of  this  ex  parte  work  on  the  part 
of  the  officials  —  both  of  church  and  of  state  — 
was  the  determination  of  James  I.  for  political 
purposes  to  obliterate  the  facts  reoaidin<r  the 
movement.  Of  the  two  chief  influences  inspir- 
ing American  colonization,  the  religious  may 
have  predominated  in  New  England;  but  poli- 
tics was  the  mother's  milk  of  Vir<»-iuia.  My 
failure  to  take  into  consideration  the  political 
conditions  then  obtaining  caused  me  to  mis- 
understand the  true  character  of  the  company 
conducting  the  movement,  and  of  some  of  the 
most  important  political  features  of  the  move- 
ment. 

As  the  book  related  to  events  prior  to  1617, 
and  as  I  wished  to  defend  our  founders  of  that 
period  from  the  unjust  charges  of  the  contem- 
porary historian,  I  naturally  wrote  from  the  view 
point  of  the  Sir  Thomas  Smith  party  in  the  cor- 
poration ;  but  as  I  had  failed  to  give  proper 
consideration  to  the  national  political  conditions 
then  obtaining  in  England,  and  to  the  fact  that 
this  party  finally  affiliated  with  the  national 
Court  party,  I  was  mistaken  in  some  of  the 
opinions  expressed  of  James  I.,  of  several  mem- 
bers of  the  Court  party,  of  Sir  Edwin  Sandys, 
and  of  several  members  of  his  party. 

No  party  in  our  country  has  now  an  absolute 
control  over  evidence  such  as  the  Court  i)arty 
had   while  our   country  was  under  the  crown  ; 


184  AN  EXPLANATION 

but  even  under  a  free  government,  with  a  free 
press,  the  influence  of  party  politics  on  history 
as  pubHshed  is  very  great.  Under  the  royal 
government  the  influence  of  imperial  politics 
was  paramount.  I  knew  these  political  facts 
when  compiling  "  The  First  Republic  in  Amer- 
ica," in  1897,  and  therefore,  instead  of  writing 
that  book  from  the  point  of  view  from  which  I 
vrrote  "  The  Genesis  of  the  United  States,"  or 
from  the  view  point  of  the  Court  party,  as  had 
been  the  custom  of  historians  generally  (in  whole 
or  in  part)  from  the  first,  I  wrote  from  the  point 
of  view  of  the  Patriot  party.  This  had  really 
always  been  the  correct  political  view  point  for 
the  history  of  this  movement,  and  it  had  been 
the  loyal  view  for  our  historians  to  take  for  over 
one  hundred  and  twenty  years ;  yet  "  The  First 
RepubHc  in  America  "  has  the  honor  of  being 
the  first  book  so  written  to  be  published  in  the 
Republic.  It  was  the  first  effort  to  restore  to 
our  foundation  as  a  nation  the  inspiring  political 
features  of  which  it  was  robbed  by  those  who 
controUed  the  evidences  and  the  histories  under 
the  crown.  And  there  could  be  no  clearer  illus- 
tration of  the  very  effectual  manner  in  which 
the  purpose  of  the  Court  party  had  been  carried 
out  than  the  fact  that  this  book  was  condemned 
in  several  of  our  leading  historical  magazines 
and  reviews,  especially  because  it  presented  the 
case  of  our  founders  from  this  loyal,  patriotic, 


AN  EXPLANATION  18,-, 

and  correct  point  of  view  rather  than  from  tlie 
view  of  the  crown  evidences. 

So  far  as  I  know  I  was  the  first  person  under 
the  Republic  to  undertake  seriously  the  tusk  of 
correcting  this  historic  wrong.  I  had  to  Ihul 
my  way  to  the  true  history,  as  it  were,  through  a 
fenny  field,  filled  with  pitfalls  and  other  obsta- 
cles, without  guides,  and  at  the  constant  risk  of 
being  led  astray  by  the  unreal  light  produced 
by  Jack-with-a-lantern.  As  I  had  been  studying 
the  case  for  some  time  before  I  undertook  my 
task,  I  knew  some  of  the  difiiculties  ;  but  I  had 
no  conception  of  the  magnitude  of  the  oi)posi- 
tion  with  which  I  should  have  to  contend,  nor 
of  the  obstacles  which  I  should  have  to  over- 
come. When  I  became  aware  of  these  things,  I 
saw  that  my  means  were  too  limited  for  me  to 
have  undertaken  the  task  single-handed,  but  my 
heart  was  then  in  the  work,  and  I  could  not  give 
it  up.  Therefore,  I  determined  to  make  every 
sacrifice  in  order  to  carry  out  my  object,  and  I 
have  done  so. 

I  have  had  to  contend  with  the  almost  insur- 
mountable obstacles  placed  in  the  way  of  finding 
the  facts  by  James  I.,  his  commissioned  olHcials, 
and  licensed  historians.  I  have  not  only  had  the 
disappointments  and  expenses  always  incidental 
to  searching  for  —  finding  or  not  finding  —  evi- 
dences ;  but  when  found  it  has  frequently  been 
very  difficult  to  obtain  complete  copies  of  the 


186  AN  EXPLANATION 

manuscripts,  and  when  obtained  it  has  sometimes 
been  very  difficult  to  make  a  correct  analysis  of  the 
contents  of  the  documents.  If  we  note  the  fact 
that  it  is  not  possible  to  write  any  book  so  as  to 
prevent  those  from  finding  fault  with  it  who  wish 
to  do  so,  we  will  see  the  great  difficulty  of  com- 
piling a  book  in  the  best  form  for  correcting  the 
wrong  impressions  wdiich  have  resulted  from  an 
almost  absolute  control  over  the  history  and  all 
evidences  for  nearly  one  hundred  and  fifty  years 
by  the  crown  officials.  After  an  article  or  book 
was  written  I  have  had  the  difficulty  of  finding  a 
publisher  liberal  enough  and  patriotic  enough  to 
undertake  the  publication  of  an  article  or  a  book 
opposing  opinions  which  have  grown  gray  with 
age  and  become  popular.  Then  I  have  had  the 
difficulty  of  securing  a  sufficient  number  of  ad- 
vance orders  to  justify  the  printing  of  such  a  book. 
After  publication  I  have  had  to  confront  the  oppo- 
sition arising  from  the  fact  that  as  the  crown  had 
suppressed  the  case  so  effectually  for  so  long,  the 
history  written  in  opposition  to  the  founding 
and  to  the  founders  of  the  popular  course  of 
government  in  this  country  had  become  the 
popular  history  of  our  national  origin.  And  the 
case  of  the  crown  against  our  patriotic  founders 
was  not  only  supported  by  the  veneration  which 
age  confers,  but  the  advocates  of  the  crown  evi- 
dences actually  brought  present  sectional  politics 
into  play  in  order  to  aid  them  in  perpetuating 


AN  EXPLANATION  1H7 

the  historic  ^rong.  The  true  history  of  our 
political  foundation  had  been  placed  under  the 
ban  by  the  officials  under  the  crown ;  and  my 
effort  in  behalf  of  the  true  history  was  at  once 
placed  under  the  ban,  so  far  as  they  could  do  so, 
by  the  advocates  of  the  historians  hcensed  under 
the  crown.  The  court  which  licensed  the  publi- 
cation of  Smith's  history  would  have  burnt  my 
books  and  imprisoned  me;  but  thanks  to  the 
immortal  principles  which  inspired  our  founders, 
the  advocates  of  John  Smith  could  only  "  roast " 
my  books  and  abuse  me.  Thus  it  will  have  been 
seen  that  the  difficulty  has  not  only  been  to  over- 
come the  obstacles  placed  in  the  way  by  James  I. 
and  his  successors  under  the  crown,  but  also  those 
which  have  grown  up  in  the  way,  so  to  speak, 
under  the  Republic. 

In  the  interest  of  the  task  that  I  had  under- 
taken, and  to  offset  as  far  as  possible  these  mis- 
representations  of  my  work,  I  published  (and  cir- 
culated at  my  own  expense)  in  the  fall  of  1898 
a  pamphlet  called  "  The  History  of  our  Earliest 
History  ;  an  appeal  for  the  truth  of  history  in 
vindication  of  our  legitimate  origin  as  a  nation, 
as  an  act  of  justice  to  our  founders,  and  as  an 
incentive  to  patriotism."  For  the  same  purpose 
I  published  in  "  The  Virginia  Magazine  of  His- 
tory and  Biography,"  for  January,  1899,  '  A 
note  on  Mr.  W.  W.  Henry's  views  of  "  The 
First  Republic  in  America."  ' 


188  AN  EXPLANATION 

When  I  undertook  my  task  I  not  only  had  no 
idea  of  the  magnitude  of  the  difficulties  before 
me,  but  I  did  not  have  an  adequate  idea  of  the 
magnitude  of  the  historic  wrong  which  had  been 
committed.  The  importance  of  my  task  is  now 
f  idly  realized  by  those  who  look  at  the  real  con- 
troversy from  the  patriotic  point  of  view.  The 
difficulties  remaining  in  the  way  of  correcting  the 
wronof  are  not  so  much  with  the  obstacles  which 
were  placed  in  the  way  under  James  I.  as  with 
the  obstacles  resulting  therefrom  —  present  obsta- 
cles. Every  school  in  which  the  earliest  history 
of  Virginia  has  been  taught  has  used  histories 
presenting  the  case  largely  from  the  view  point, 
and  on  the  evidences  of  the  Court  party ;  every 
public,  and  nearly  every  private,  library  in  the 
United  States  has  contained  such  histories ;  the 
ideas  of  our  national  foundation  and  of  our  polit- 
ical founders  have  been  based  on  the  evidences 
of  the  Court  party  against  our  patriotic  founders 
for  so  long  that  the  complete  correction  of  the 
original  historic  wrong  in  every  detail,  or  in  the 
mind  of  every  person,  is  not  now  possible  ;  and 
I  have  never  hoped  to  accomplish  the  impossible. 
We  have  had  no  history  which  presented  the 
case  from  the  view  point  and  on  the  evidences 
of  the  Patriot  party ;  we  have  not  been  taught, 
and  our  libraries  have  not  contained,  such  his- 
tories ;  hence  very  many  of  our  people,  who  wish 
to   understand  the  case  fully  and  fairly,  have 


AN  EXPLANATION  189 

not  had  an  opportunity  to  read  the  evidences 
of  the  Patriot  party  against  the  acts  of  tlie  Court 
party.  I  wish  to  show  to  these  people  that  an 
historic  wrong  was  committed  by  James  L,  his 
commissioned  officials,  and  Hcensed  historians  ; 
I  wish  to  give  to  those  who  want  to  honor  the 
founders  of  the  popular  course  of  government 
in  our  country  a  true  and  patriotic  history  of 
this  movement  so  far  as  is  now  possible  ;  and 
although  I  have  not  always  taken  the  correct 
political  point  of  view,  this  has  been  the  "  inten- 
tion "  of  my  work  from  the  first. 

The  object  of  this  book  is  to  show  more  clearly 
than  I  have  yet  done  the  correct  political  and 
historical  point  of  view ;  the  real  importance  of 
the  movement ;  the  political  character  of  the  his- 
toric wrong  done  those  who,  under  the  charters 
of  1609  and  1612,  inaugurated  a  popular  course 
of  government  in  this  country  ;  the  political  in- 
fluences which  swayed  opinions,  evidences,  and 
histories  under  James  I.,  and  the  political  influ- 
ences which  have  been  instrumental  in  upholding 
the  e\'idences  and  purposes  of  the  crown  ever 
since.  I  have  tried  to  make  these  things  clear  in 
Parts  I.,  II.,  III.,  and  IV.  ;  but  a  proper  under- 
standing of  the  politics  of  the  movement  is  essen- 
tial to  a  correct  understanding  of  its  history. 
Therefore  I  will  try  to  give  as  complete  an  idea 
as  I  can  briefly  do  of  its  leading  pohtical  features 
in  the  following  Part  V. 


190  AN  EXPLANATION 

We  srive  thanks  to  the  little  acorn  for  the 
great  oak,  and  those  who  planted  the  seed  of 
our  popular  course  of  government  in  our  country 
must  not  be  forgotten. 


PART    V 

A  REVIEW  of  some  of  the  leading  political  features  in  the 
case  between  the  Patriot  party,  which  managed  the  business 
and  laid  the  foundation  upon  which  this  great  nation  has 
been  erected,  and  the  Court  party,  which  controlled  the 
evidences  and  laid  the  foundation  upon  which  the  histoiy  of 
this  great  movement  has  been  written. 


CHAPTER  I 

THE  IMPORTANCE  OF  THE  MOVEMENT  AS  REPRE- 
SENTED IN  THE  CROWN  EVIDENCES  AND  AS  IT 
WAS    IN    FACT 

The  first  English  colony  in  the  present  United 
States  —  the  political  mother  o£  the  colonies  — 
was  not  founded  by  a  king ;  nor  by  an  agent 
of  a  king ;  nor  under  a  form  of  government 
designed  by  a  king ;  nor  on  the  principles  advo- 
cated by  a  king  and  Court  party. 

James  I.  did  not  even  risk  his  royal  revenues 
in  founding  colonies  in  Virginia.  The  efforts 
to  establish  colonies  by  companies  and  councils 
under  royal  government  resulted  in  failure.  For 
the  sake  of  the  liberal  political  charter  rights 
of  self-government,  etc.,  granted  in  perpetuity,  a 
"corporation  and  body  politic"  undertook  the 
task  at  their  own  expense. 

Almost  as  soon  as  the  body  politic  had  secured 
a  hold  on  the  country,  had  begun  to  establisli 
their  popular  idea  of  government  in  the  colony, 
and  to  settle  landed  estates  in  their  domain, 
James  I.  determined  to  rob  that  l)ody  of  tlie 
popular  political  rights  which  he  had  granted  in 


194  OF  THE  MOVEMENT 

perpetuity  under  the  broad  seal  of  England,  and 
6i  the  property  rights  which  they  had  secured  at 
the  expense  of  their  own  Wood  and  treasure,  un- 
assisted by  the  revenues  of  the  crown.  In  order 
to  justify  himself  before  his  people  and  posterity 
for  doing  these  dishonorable  things,  he  attempted 
to  prove  by  sundry  "  swift  witnesses  "  for  the 
crown  —  in  manuscript  and  in  print  —  that  Vir- 
ginia had  really  been  founded  under  "  his  Ma- 
jesties first  grant  of  April,  1606,  and  his  Majes- 
ty's most  prudent  and  princely  instructions,"  ^ 
and  that  all  had  gone  to  ruin  under  "  the  popular 
course  of  government  "  instituted  by  the  Patriot 
party,  which  the  Court  party  called  "  misgovern- 
ment."  In  order  to  justify  and  to  conceal  the 
wrong  of  this  his  proceeding,  he  confiscated  the 
evidences  of  the  corporation  and  licensed  false 
"  histories  "  of  the  whole  transaction. 

John  Ferrar  correctly  said,^  that  "  The  king 
was  at  the  bottom  of  the  whole  proceeding, 
which  from  beginning  to  end  was  a  despotic  vio- 
lation of  honour,  and  of  justice ;  which  proved 
him  to  be  a  man  void  of  every  laudable  principle 
of  action  ;  a  man  who  in  all  his  exertions  made 
himself  the  scorn  of  those  who  were  not  in  his 
power,  and  the  detestation  of  those  who  were ; 
a  man  whose  head  was  indeed  encircled  with  the 

^  See  The  First  Republic  in  America,  pp.  540-542,  etc. 
^  See  Memoirs   of  the   Life  of  Mr.    Nicholas   Ferrar,   by    P. 
Peckard,  D.  D.,  Cambridge  (England),  1790,  p.  147. 


OF  THE  MOVEMENT  19o 

Koyal  Diadem,  but  never  surely  was  bead  more 
unwortby  or  unfit  to  wear  it."  From  tbe  view 
point  of  tbe  Patriot  party,  it  was  indeed  as  dis- 
honorable a  piece  of  work  as  any  king  was  ever 
guilty  of. 

Tbe  cbief  agents  of  James  I.  in  depriving  tbe 
political  body  of  tbe  cbarter  riglits  under  wbicb 
tbe  first  colony  bad  been  founded  were  bis 
Privy  Council ;  tbe  royal  commission  of  1G23, 
witb  Sir  William  Jones  (wbo  bad  served  tbe 
king  in  Ireland)  presiding;  and  tbe  Court  of 
King's  Bencb,  Cbief  Justice  Sir  James  Ley  (wbo 
bad  served  tbe  king  in  Ireland)  presiding.  Tbe 
Patriots,  bowever,  "  laid  tbe  great  load  on  "  Li- 
onell  Cranfield  Earl  of  Middlesex  and  Lord  Iligb 
Treasurer  of  England,  as  being  tbe  king's  cbief 
instrument  in  tbis  matter. 

Tbe  king's  cbief  agents  in  confiscating  tbe  evi- 
dences of  tbe  corporation  and  disseminating  tbe 
manuscript  evidences  (reports,  orders,  letters, 
discourses,  documents,  etc.)  favorable  to  tbe  pur- 
poses of  tbe  crown,  were  bis  Privy  Councilors 
and  royal  commissioners  of  1623  and  1624.  Tbe 
large  commission  of  July  25,  1624,  was  especi- 
ally instrumental  in  confiscating  tbe  evidences, 
records,  etc.,  of  tbe  Virginia  Corporation  and 
body  politic,  being  required  by  tbe  crown  to  take 
and  to  keep  all  tbe  evidences  of  all  sorts  in  any 
ways  concerning  tbe  colony  of  Virginia.  It  was 
composed  of :  — 


19G  OF  THE  MOVEMENT 

Members  of  the  Privy  Council  and  officials 
of  the  crown :  Henry  Montagu  Viscount  Mande- 
ville,  Lord  President  of  the  Council ;  William 
Lord  Pagett,  Arthur  Lord  Chichester,  Sir  Thomas 
Edmonds,  Sir  John  Suckling,  Sir  George  Cal- 
vert, Sir  Edward  Conway,  Sir  Richard  Weston, 
and  Sir  Julius  Ciesar. 

Officials  of  the  Crown:  Sir  Humfry  May, 
Sir  Baptist  Hickes,  Sir  Thomas  Smith,  Sir  Henry 
Mildmay,  Sir  Thomas  Coventry,  and  Sir  Robert 
Heath. 

Knights :  Ferdinando  Gorges,  Robert  Killi- 
grew,  Charles  Montagu,  Philip  Carie,  Francis 
Gofton,  Thomas  Wroth,  John  Wolstenholme, 
Nathaniel  Rich,  Samuel  Argall,  and  Humfry 
Handford. 

Ministers,  etc. :  Matthew  Sutcliff,  Dean  of 
Exeter,  and  Francis  White,  Dean  of  Carlisle ; 
Thomas  Fanshaw,  Esquire,  Gierke  of  the  Crown. 

Aldermen  of  London  :  Robert  Johnson,  James 
Cambell,  and  Raphe  Freeman. 

Esquires :  Morice  Abbot,  Nathaniel  Butler, 
George  Wilmore,  William  Hackwell,  John  Mild- 
may,  Philip  Jermayne,  Edward  Johnson,  Thomas 
Gibbes,  Samuel  Wrote,  John  Porey,  Michaell 
Hawes,  and  Edward  Pallavacine. 

Merchants  :  Robert  Bateman,  Martyn  Bonde, 
Thomas  Stiles,  Nicholas  Leate,  Robert  Bell, 
Abraham  Cartwright,  Richard  Edwards,  John 
Dyke,  Anthony  Abdy,  William  Palmer,  Edward 


OF  THE   M0VP:MENT  l-j? 

Dichfield,  George  Mole,  and  Richard  Morer,  — 
lifty-six  in  all ;  and  quite  certainly  less  tlian  ;i 
dozen  were  then  in  sympathy  with  the  Patriots. 
And  that  they  did  their  work  effectually  is  evi- 
dent, for  not  a  scrap  of  the  original  records  of 
the  corporation  has  been  found  in  England. 

His  chief  agent  in  disseminating  and  perpetu- 
ating a  false  idea  of  the  movement  was  the 
printing  press  under  the  control  of  the  Court  of 
Star  Chamber,  and  of  the  High  Commission,  with 
George  Abbot  (who  had  won  the  confidence  of 
James  I.  in  1608,  by  publicly  supporting  him  in 
the  controversy  over  the  Gowrie  Plot  of  IGOO), 
Archbishop  of  Canterbury,  presiding.  The  chief 
active  agents  in  these  premises  were  the  histori- 
ans licensed  by  the  crown.  Rev.  Samuel  Purchas 
and  Captain  John  Smith.  The  history  of  the 
popular  reform  movement  was  "  corrupted  and 
falsified"  by  them,  and  we  are  still  enjoying  (?) 
the  fruit  of  their  labors  in  the  Republic  founded 
on  the  principles  which  they  opposed. 

It  was  probably  Purchas  rather  than  Smith 
whom  James  I.  resfarded  as  the  historian  of  the 
colonial  movements.^  His  summary,  an  outline 
of  the  ideas  of  the  Court  party,  gives  the  chief 
honors  to  James  I.,  whom  he  regarded  as 
"  beyond  comparison  compared  with  others,  a 
meere  transcendent;  beyond  all  his  Predecessors, 
Princes  of  this  Realme  )  beyond  the  neighbour- 

1  See  Jlie  First  Republic  in  America,  p.  C3G. 


198  OF  THE  MOVEMENT 

ing  Princes  of  his  own  times,  beyond  the  conceits 
of  subjects  clazled  with  such  brightnes :  Beyond 
our  victorious  Debora  not  in  sex  alone,  but  as 
Peace  is  more  excellent  then  War,  and  Salomon 
then  David.  .  .  .  Thus  at  home  doth  Great  Bri- 
tain enjoy  this  Gem  of  Goodnes,  the  best  part 
of  the  Ring  of  the  worlds  Greatnes  ;  And  abroad, 
we  see  that  as  Gods  Steward  to  others  also.  His 
Majestie  hath  ballanced  the  neerer  World  by  his 
prudence,  by  justice  of  commerce  \4sited  the  re- 
moter, by  truest  fortitude  without  wrong  to  any 
man  conquered  the  furthest  North,  and  by  just- 
est  temperance  disposed  the  overflowing  numbers 
of  his  Subjects,  not  in  Intrusions  and  Invasions 
of  weaker  Neighbours,  but  in  the  spacious  Amer- 
ican Refjions  to  breed  New  Britaines  in  another 
World."  These  things  were  not  done  by  James  I. 
in  person,  nor  at  his  expense  ;  but  Purchas  con- 
sidered that  they  were  done  by  his  agents  or 
representatives  and  gave  the  honors  to  James  I. 
It  is  now  certain  that  James  I.  was  determined 
to  commit  a  great  wrong  when  he  attempted  to 
annul  the  popular  charters  conveying  the  right 
of  self-government  and  other  liberal  privileges  to 
the  citizens  of  Virginia.  He  did  not  live  long 
enough  to  actually  deprive  them  of  their  original 
pohtical  charter  rights,  yet  our  forefathers  were 
not  able  to  fully  secure  those  rights  from  the 
crown  for  one  hundred  and  fifty  years,  and  then 
only  by  force  and  arms.      And  thus  this  pre- 


OF  THE  MOVEMENT  199 

meditated  wrong  of  James  I.  was  corrected  one 
hundred  and  twenty  years  ao-o. 

It  is  now  certain  that  James  I.  was  determined 
to  commit  a  great  wrong  when  he  atteini)te(l  to 
obliterate  the  true  idea  and  to  disseminate  a  false 
idea  of  the  origin  of  this  nation.  And  unfortu- 
nately he  did  live  long  enough  to  confiscate  the 
evidences  of  the  political  body,  to  see  false  "  his- 
tories "  published,  and  thus  to  put  into  effect 
his  plans  for  obliterating  the  true  history  of 
the  whole  movement.  As  a  result  of  this  deter- 
mination of  an  absolute  power,  carried  out  by 
royal  successors  from  generation  to  generation, 
even  after  the  i)olitical  charter  rights  were  se- 
cured, the  royal  history  thus  impeached,  and  our 
people  thus  freed  from  royal  control  in  many 
things,  they  were  still  forced,  by  the  lack  of 
other  evidences,  to  submit  to  the  royal  control 
over  our  earliest  history.  And  therefore  tliis 
premeditated  wrong  of  James  I.  has  not  been 
corrected.  Even  at  the  present  day  most  of  our 
histories  of  this  movement  (especially  of  the 
period  prior  to  1619),  after  altering  some  per- 
sonal references  to  James  I.,  would  have  been 
licensed  for  publication  by  his  High  Commission. 

It  will  not  be  necessary  to  go  to  war  in  order 
to  correct  this  wron"; ;  for  no  one  is  any  lonirer 
obliged  either  by  law,  by  loyalty,  or  by  an  actual 
lack  of  other  evidence  to  perpetuate  the  ideas 
of  our   national    origin  disseminated  under  the 


200  OF  THE  MOVEMENT 

crown.  There  were  formerly  many  reasons, 
from  the  poHtical  view  of  the  Court  party,  why 
the  royal  government  should  support  the  utterly 
absurd  ideas  conveyed  in  the  histories  licensed 
by  the  crown  of  the  grand  movement  for  insti- 
tuting the  popular  course  of  government  in  Amer- 
ica ;  but  there  is  no  longer  any  reason,  from 
the  political  view  of  the  Patriot  party,  why  we 
should  continue  to  uphold  the  dishonorable  work 
of  James  I.  and  his  agents  in  these  premises. 
To  the  contrary  there  is  now  every  reason  why 
our  national  government  should  be  as  anxious  to 
reveal  the  true  thews  and  sinews  of  our  national 
oi-igin,  and  to  show  that  the  plantations  in 
America  are  a  lasting  monument  to  the  popular 
course  of  government  designed  by  Sir  Edwin 
Sandys  and  our  patriotic  founders,  and  to  pre- 
serve the  evidences  in  proof  thereof  wheresoever 
they  may  be  found,  as  the  royal  government 
was  to  conceal  the  fact ;  to  destroy  the  evidences 
in  proof  thereof  ;  and  to  produce  the  false  im- 
pression that  the  plantations  in  America  were  a 
lastino'  monument  to  James  I.  and  to  the  mon- 
archical  form  of  government  designed  by  him. 

Manifestly  it  was  never  just  to  rely  upon  the 
accounts  published  under  the  auspices  of  the 
royal  government  for  our  ideas  of  the  beginning 
of  the  popular  political  reform  movement  con- 
ducted under  the  management  of  the  Patriot 
party  even  when  no  other  evidence  was  avail- 


OF  THE  MOVEMENT  201 

able  ;  but  (as  I  have  outlined  in  Part  III.)  owing 
to  circimistances  formerly  obtaining-  it  has  been, 
I  may  say,  necessarily  relied  upon.  The  kings 
of  England  showed  an  ever-increasing  determi- 
nation to  obliterate  liberal  political  ideas ;  con- 
tinued to  exercise  an  especially  absolute  control 
over  the  freedom  of  the  press  and  political  mat- 
ters in  Virginia ;  and  for  many  generations, 
wdth  the  exception  of  a  brief  period  under  the 
Commonwealth,  when  men's  minds  were  com- 
pletely occupied  with  the  absorbing  conditions 
then  obtaining,  the  public  had  little  or  no  option 
in  the  matter.  The  inspirations  which  shaped 
the  ends  of  this  movement  were  eliminated  from 
the  page  of  contemporary  history ;  but  these 
principles  are  iumiortal  and  could  not  be  elimi- 
nated from  the  page  of  time. 

When  we  consider  the  means  adopted  in  the 
first  instance,  and  the  long  control  exercised  over 
the  evidences  and  the  press  by  the  advocates  of 
the  ideas  of  the  Court  party,  we  shall  see  that 
it  is  almost  a  miracle  that  any  of  the  evidences 
favorable  to  the  institution  of  a  popular  course 
of  government  in  America  escaped  the  deter- 
mined efforts  of  the  crown  to  have  it  all  de- 
stroyed. But  the  truth  conquers.  The  circum- 
stances which  formerly  caused  the  publication 
of  an  inaccurate,  incomplete  account,  and  pre- 
vented the  publication  of  a  real  history  of  this 
advance  movement,  have  really  been  removed  by 


202  OF  THE  MOVEMENT 

the  movement  as  it  advanced.  The  Star  Cham- 
ber and  Hio'h  Commission  courts  were  removed 
under  the  advance  of  Hberal  ideas  by  the  Parlia- 
ment in  1641  ;  the  freedom  of  the  press  began 
under  similar  influence  by  special  vote  of  the 
Commons  in  1693 ;  the  standpoint  of  our  politi- 
cal loyalty  was  revolutionized  in  1776  ;  and  under 
Providence  much  of  the  evidence  formerly  con- 
fiscated and  suppressed  by  the  crown  has  been 
found  by  the  laborers  of  the  Republic  in  the 
field  of  orior"inal  research  lookino^  for  the  truth. 
Although  it  may  be  that  less  than  one  fourth  of 
the  manuscript  records  of  the  original  body  po- 
litic have  been  found,  yet  included  in  these  there 
is  a  great  deal  of  very  great  public  importance. 
A  review  of  the  case  will  show  that  since  Beverley 
and  Keith  wrote  their  histories  of  Virginia  nearly 
two  centuries  ago,  the  chief  difficulties  then  in 
the  way  of  rescuing  the  real  history  of  our  ori- 
gin as  a  nation  have  been  in  a  large  measure 
removed,  and  we  are  at  last  able  to  have  at  least 
a  fairly  correct  outline  of  "  the  most  remarkable 
passage^  from  the  original  to  the  dissolution  of 
the  Virginia  Company." 

The  most  important  question  now  remaining  is, 
not  whether  a  great  wrong  was  done  our  found- 
ers in  the  histories  licensed  under  James  I.,  for 
there  can  no  longer  be  any  question  as  to  that 
fact ;  but  the  question  is  whether  enough  of  the 
evidence  confiscated  by  the  king's  commissioners 


OF  THE   MOVEMENT  203 

has  been  found  to  enable  us  to  correct  the 
■wrong.  As  to  some  periods  enough  has  been 
found,  as  to  others  much  is  still  missincr ;  but  as 
it  is  now  our  duty  to  consider  all  the  evidence 
from  the  view  point  of  the  Patriot  party,  it  will 
be  found  that  much  of  the  old  evidence,  in  print 
and  in  manuscript,  will  convey  different  ideas 
from  those  formerly  accepted,  when  thus  consid- 
ered. The  particulars  regarding  which  the  evi- 
dence as  yet  found  is  insufficient,  or  entirely 
missing,  are  generally  not  of  the  greatest  his- 
torical importance.  There  is  certainly  sufficient 
evidence  now  available  to  show  the  vital  facts  : 
that  this  nation  had  its  orijrin  in  the  greatest 
political  reform  movement  of  modern  times  ;  that 
James  I.  wished  to  stamp  out  the  vital  spark  of 
this  movement ;  that  he  determined  for  political 
reasons  to  obliterate  all  idea  of  its  true  character 
from  history  ;  that  the  history  published  inuler 
the  auspices  of  the  crown  did  this  by  depriving 
the  enterprise  of  its  inspiring  features ;  and  that 
save  for  the  pious  care  of  individuals  every  par- 
ticle of  our  earliest  political  history  —  every  ves- 
tige of  the  real  inspiration  of  our  natiop.al  origin 
—  would  have  been  obliterated  from  the  page  of 
all  history  for  all  time. 

An  analysis  of  the  evidences  now  available, 
with  due  reference  to  the  point  of  view  of  the 
Patriot  party,  will  show  that  past  history  has  re- 
versed the  true  view  of  this  movement ;  that  the 


204  OF  THE   CHARTERS 

historic  sins  are  of  omission  as  well  as  of  commis- 
sion, of  a  personal  as  well  as  of  a  public  charac- 
ter ;  that  inadequate  ideas  are  given  of  the  in- 
fluence exerted  on  the  movement  by  the  various 
national  parties  of  Church  and  State  in  England, 
and  by  the  great  continental  powers  —  Spain, 
the  Netherlands,  and  France ;  —  and  that  entirely 
incorrect  ideas  are  conveyed  of  the  leading  polit- 
ical features  of  the  movement :  of  the  charters 
under  which  the  movement  was  conducted ;  of 
the  corporation  which  conducted  the  movement ; 
of  the  forms  of  government  at  issue ;  of  the 
managers  of  the  corporation,  and  of  the  motives 
which  inspired  them. 

CHAPTER  II 

THE  IDEA  OF  THE  CHARTERS  UNDER  WHICH  THE 
POLITICAL  MOVEMENT  WAS  CONDUCTED,  AS 
CONVEYED  BY  THE  CROWN  EVIDENCES,  VERSUS 


THE  CORRECT  IDEA 


In  order  to  put  a  stop  to  (suppress)  the  institu- 
tion of  the  popular  course  of  government  which 
the  body  politic,  incorporated  in  the  charters  of 
1609  and  1(312,  was  inaugurating  in  this  coun- 
try, James  I.  determined  to  annul  the  popular 
charters.  In  order  to  justify  this  act  and  to  ob- 
literate the  fact  that  the  colony  had  been  founded 
on  the  liberal  idea  of  government  to  which  his 


OF  THE  CHARTERS  OQT, 

majesty  was  so  much  opposed,  and  not  on  the 
form  designed  by  himself,  the  histories  licensed 
under  the  crown  do  not  show  what  the  charter 
rights  were,  or  what  inspired  the  desire  to  obtain 
them,  or  who  petitioned  for  them,  or  anything  of 
any  value  about  them  —  in  fact,  these  historians 
really  obliterated  these  charters  from  history  so 
far  as  they  could.  The  Rev.  Samuel  Purchas 
published  an  abstract  of  the  royal  charter  of 
1606 ;  but  the  charters  of  1609  and  1612  to  the 
corporation  were  not  published  in,  and  a  cor- 
rect idea  of  them  cannot  be  derived  from,  tlie 
contemporary  histories,  or  from  any  history  pub- 
Kshed  prior  to  1747.  There  is  now  enough  evi- 
dence to  show  that  these  charters  were  the  j)olit- 
ical  foundation  of  the  reform  movement  which 
was  the  beginning  of  our  existence  as  a  republic  ; 
and  therefore  it  is  of  the  first  historic  importance 
for  us  to  understand  them  and  all  that  pertains 
to  them. 

The  charter  of  April,  1606,  authorized  a  com- 
pany, composed  of  adventurers  only,  "  called  the 
first  colony,"  to  settle  a  plantation  of  one  hun- 
dred miles  square  along  the  Atlantic  coast  some- 
where between  34°  and  41°  north  latitude.  This 
company  was  authorized  to  send  out  settlers  at 
its  own  expense.  But  the  company  of  adven- 
turers and  the  settlers  of  the  plantation  were  to 
be  under  officials  appointed  for  them  by  and  un- 
der a  form  of  government  designed  for  them  by 


206  OF  THE  CHARTERS 

James  I. ;  they  neither  had  the  right  to  govern 
the  proposed  plantation,  nor  themselves  —  James 
I.  took  care  of  that.  Even  the  ships  sent  by 
this  company  were  under  the  charge  of  officers 
appointed  by  the  colonial  council  of  the  king 
in  England,  commissioned  under  and  responsible 
to  the  crown.  This  Virginia  Company  was  not 
only  not  allowed  to  govern  the  plantation  which 
was  to  be  settled  at  its  own  expense ;  but  the 
rights  granted  were  limited,  even  the  liberty  of 
enjoying  the  rights  of  British  subjects  in  the 
other  dominions  of  the  crown  of  Great  Britain 
was  confined  by  the  patent  to  the  settlers  and 
their  children.  But  as  I  have  shown  in  Part  I., 
both  the  North  and  South  Virginia  plantations 
failed  under  the  administration  of  James  I.  The 
North  and  South  Virginia  companies  were  super- 
seded by  corporations  and  bodies  politic  under 
which  both  colonies  were  settled. 

"  A  corporation  and  body  politic,"  composed 
of  both  adventurers  of  the  purse  and  planters  of 
the  country,  "  called  The  Treasurer  and  Company 
of  Adventurers  and  Planters  of  the  City  of  Lon- 
don for  the  first  Colony  in  Virginia,"  was  incor- 
porated by  the  charter  of  June  2,  1609.  And 
this  charter  "  gave,  granted,  and  confirmed  "  to 
the  members  of  this  body  politic,  their  succes- 
sors, and  assigns  forever,  the  whole  boundary 
between  34°  and  40°  north  latitude,  extending 
from  the  Atlantic  to  the  Pacific  ;  "  they  paying 


OF  THE  CHARTERS  joy 

to  the  crown  the  fifth  part  only  of  all  on-  of 
gold  and  silver  that  from  time  to  time,  and  at 
all  times  hereafter,  shall  be  there  <;otten." 

Under  the  charters  of  1G()9  and  1012  the 
body  politic  was  authorized  to  add  thereto  new 
members,  both  adventurers  of  the  purse  and 
planters  of  the  country,  to  an  unlimited  number  ; 
to  secure  and  to  settle  this  boundary  ;  and  to 
govern  themselves  and  their  dominion  agreeably 
to  the  laws  of  England,  "  forever  hereafter." 

The  grant  of  land  conveyed  by  these  char- 
ters embraced  all  or  portions  of  the  i)resent  New 
Jersey,  Delaware,  Pennsylvania,  Maryland,  Dis- 
trict of  Columbia,  Virginia,  West  Virginia,  North 
Carolina,  South  Carolina,  Georgia,  Alabama, 
Mississippi,  Tennessee,  Kentucky,  Ohio,  Indiana, 
Illinois,  Missouri,  Kansas,  Arkansas,  Indian  Ter- 
ritory, Oklahoma,  Texas,  New  Mexico,  Colorado, 
Arizona,  Utah,  Nevada,  and  California. 

The  corporation  not  only  had  the  especial  po- 
litical privilege  of  self-government  in  the  domin- 
ion conveyed  by  these  charters  forever  ;  but  the 
planters,  their  children,  and  tltc'ir  j^osteriti/  — 
the  future  citizens  of  that  domain  —  were  also  to 
"  enjoy  all  liberties,  franchises  and  immunities  of 
free  denizens  and  natural  subjects,  within  "  any 
of  the  other  dominions  of  the  Crown  of  Great 
Britain,  ybr ever.  Similar  privileges  were  after- 
wards granted  in  North  Virginia  under  the  Massa- 
chusetts charter  of  1629  and  subsequent  charters. 


208  OF  THE  CHARTERS 

It  is  true  that  men  inspired  with  liberal  ideas 
were  members  of  the  company  of  1606-1609, 
but  they  had  no  power  to  carry  out  those  ideas 
under  the  charter  of  April,  1606.  The  definite 
beginning  of  the  reform  movement  was  with 
the  petition  for  the  charter  incorporating  a  body 
pohtic  in  1609.  As  soon  as  that  petition  was 
granted  'the  worthy  Patriots,  Lords,  Knights, 
gentlemen,  merchants,  and  others  made  subscrip- 
tions to  the  amount  of  over  $1,000,000  (present 
value)  toward  carrying  forward  the  undertaking.' 
The  charter  granted  in  reply  to  this  petition, 
under  which  the  movement  was  to  be  inaugu- 
rated for  taking  the  destiny  of  this  country  out 
of  the  column  of  Old  World  monarchies,  and  for 
instituting  in  America  a  popular  course  of  gov- 
ernment as  a  refuge  from  the  absolute  tyranny 
of  the  royal  course  of  government  in  England, 
was  signed  on  June  2,  1609  (n.  s.),  and  was  re- 
ceived at  Jamestown  on  the  first  anniversary, 
June  2,  1610. 

The  reformation  aimed  at  was  of  the  utmost 
boldness,  encroaching  as  it  did  on  the  royal  pre- 
rogative —  "  the  projected  end  "  or  object  of  the 
movement  beins:  the  establishment  of  a  more  free 
government  in  the  New  World  as  a  refuge  from 
the  absolute  tyranny  of  the  Old  World.  The 
means  for  altering  the  king's  form  of  govern- 
ment and  for  the  final  accompHshment  of  the 
projected  end  were  embodied  in  the  charters  of 


OF  THE  CHARTERS  209 

1609  and  1G12  by  Sir  Edwin  Sandys.  As  l,o 
expressed  it  himself,  he  "purposed  to  erect  a 
free  popular  State  in  Virginia,"  and  was  tlie 
"  means  of  sending  the  charter  into  Virginia,  in 
which  is  a  clause  that  the  people  there  sliall  liave 
no  government  putt  upon  them  but  by  their  own 
consents." 

The  embryo  of  our  popular  course  of  gov- 
ernment is  found  in  these  charters,  and  in  the 
orders,  commissions,  instructions,  constitutions, 
assembhes,  and  other  political  proceedings  insti- 
tuted under  and  authorized  by  these  charters, 
which  must  be  considered  as  the  mother  charters 
of  our  political  system ;  and  therefore  whatever 
relates  to  them  has  a  bearing  on  the  subsequent 
politics  and  history  of  the  whole  country. 

In  carrying  out  the  plan  for  setting  up  in 
America  a  government  founded  on  civil  and  re- 
ligious liberty,  "  the  Pilgrims  "  sailed  for  Soutli 
Virginia  as  members  of  our  original  body  politic 
in  1620.  The  plantation  of  North  Virginia 
under  the  charter  of  1606  was  to  be  under  the 
administration  of  the  crown,  and  the  company 
incorporated  under  that  charter  could  not  have 
granted  the  Pilgrims  the  political  right  to  form 
themselves  into  "  a  civill  body  politik  "  as  they 
did  do.  The  authority  for  the  celebrated  "  IMay- 
flower  compact  "  was  derived  from  Pierce's  pateut 
of  February,  1620,  granted  by  the  Virginia 
Court  under  the  authority  derived  from  the  char- 


210  OF  THE  CHARTERS 

ters  of  1609  and  1612.  And  "  the  Pilgrims  " 
were  under  no  other  authority  until  the  arrival 
of  the  Fortune  in  November,  1621,  with  the 
official  copy  of  the  New  England  charter  of 
November,  1620,  and  with  "  the  first  Plymouth 
patent"  issued  thereunder.  And  thus  it  was 
that  the  first  actual  settlement  of  both  North 
and  South  Virginia  was  effected  under  the  same 
charters,  and  under  the  influence  of  the  same 
inspirations.^ 

Many  members  of  the  council  named  in  the 
New  England  charter  of  November,  1620,  were 
members  of  our  original  body  politic.  The 
charter  was  to  "  a  body  politic,"  but  it  was  a 
limited  and  not  a  popular  body,  and  was  in  ac- 
cordance with  the  ideas  of  the  Court  party  to 
which  Sir  F.  Gorges  and  a  majority  of  the  coun- 
cil belonged,  and  in  opposition  to  the  wishes  of 
the  Patriot  party  in  the  Virginia  Corporation. 
The  issuing  of  this  charter  was  in  fact  one  of 
the  first  steps  taken  in  the  movement  for  annul- 
ling the  popular  charters  of  that  corporation.^ 

Probably  all  of  the  twenty  "  Pattentees" 
under  the  Gorges  charter,  among  whom  New 
England  was  divided  on  July  9,  1623  (n.  s.), 
were  regarded  as  members  of  the  Court  party  at 
that  time.     James  I.  himself  drew  the  lots  for 

1  See   The  First  Republic  in  America,  pp.  252,  262-266,  271- 
273,  283,  etc. 

*  See  The  First  Republic  in  America,  pp.  361,  403,  etc. 


OF  THE  CHARTERS  jll 

several  of  them.  The  Pilgrims  who  had  settled 
in  the  country  were  not  in  accord  with  tliese 
men,  nor  in  sympathy  with  their  ideas.  Uphold 
by  their  own  religious  purposes,  they  lield  on  to 
the  colony  as  best  they  could ;  hut  the  vital  po- 
litical force  was  lacking,  and  in  order  to  save  the 
droopmg  colony,  Charles  I.  in  March,  1620,  con- 
sented to  grant  to  (North  Virginia)  Massachu- 
setts the  same  political  force  which  Sandys  and 
the  Patriots  had  called  upon  in  1609  and  1612 
to  save  South  Virginia.  This  charter  was  drafted 
by  John  White,  an  able  advocate  of  our  first  po- 
litical charter  rigflits  and  a  leadinof  member  of  the 
primary  body  politic  of  this  nation.  This  charter 
to  "  The  Governor  and  Company  [instead  of 
"  The  Treasurer  and  Company  "  ^]  of  the  Matta- 
chusetts  Baye  in  Newe  England  "  was  modeled 
after  the  South  Virginia  charters  of  1609  and 
1612  and  the  proposed  charter  of  1621.  It  had 
to  pass  Lord  Keeper  Coventry,  who  as  attorney- 
general  had  condemned  the  Virginia  charter  as 
"  an  unlimited  vast  patent,"  and  the  powers  con- 
veyed to  "  the  one  body  politique  and  corporate" 
were  not  unlimited.  But  the  political  features 
were  almost  the  same  as  those  of  the  original  pop- 
ular charters,  and  evidently  as  broad  as  Charles  I. 
would  have  granted,  similar  to  those  then  being 
promised,  and  more  liberal  than  he  was  then 
yielding  to  the  South  Virginia  Colony. 

^See  The  First  Republic  in  America,  p.  396. 


212  OF  THE  CHARTERS 

The  incorporators  of  the  New  England  char- 
ter of  November,  1620,  surrendered  their  charter 
to  the  crown  in  1635,  and  some  of  these  men, 
members  of  the  Court  party,  at  once  began  to 
prosecute  a  suit  in  the  Court  of  King's  Bench 
for  annulling  the  pohular  charter  of  the  Massa- 
chusetts Corporation  and  body  politic  as  they  had 
formerly  done  against  the  original  popular  char- 
ters. But  the  people  of  Massachusetts  managed 
to  hold  on  to  their  popular  charter  for  many 
years ;  like  the  people  of  Virginia,  many  of  them, 
never  really  yielding  their  charter  rights  to  the 
crown,  finally  secured  them  by  force  and  arms. 
This  Massachusetts  charter,  modeled  after  the 
original  popular  charters,  came  to  supersede  to  a 
large  extent  the  royal  charter  of  1620,  and  be- 
came virtually  the  direct  basis  for  the  subsequent 
North  Virginia  charters.  Thus  the  popular 
charter  rights  of  both  North  and  South  Virgin- 
ians were  derived  from  the  same  originals,  were 
very  similar,  and  it  is  equally  the  patriotic  duty 
of  both  North  and  South  Virginians  to  protect 
the  true  history  of  those  originals  from  the  deter- 
mination of  James  I.  and  the  Court  party  to  ob- 
literate it. 

When  "  The  First  Republic  in  America," 
written  with  the  intention  of  aiding  in  the  cor- 
rection of  this  historic  wrong,  was  published  in 
1898,  the  advocates  of  the  crown  evidences  called 
up  the  influence  of  present  sectional  politics  to 


OF  THE  CHARTERS  213 

aid  them  in  perpetuating  the  wrong  conwnitlcd 
under  the  influence  of  past  imperial  politics. 
On  the  one  side  Northern  readers  were  told, 
"  We  will  have  to  look  further  north  for  the  first 
republic  in  America, "  etc.,  and  on  the  other, 
Southern  readers  were  assured  that  I  was  writing 
under  Northern  training,  influence,  etc. 

I  do  not  wish  to  be  understood  as  denying  any 
of  the  honors  due  the  founders  of  any  portion  of 
our  country  or  of  any  period  of  our  national  ex- 
istence, for  this  is  not  my  intention.  Everything 
has  a  beginning.  I  am  trying  to  give  the  cor- 
rect idea  of  the  charters  of  1609  and  1G12 ;  to 
show  the  political  importance  of  these  charters, 
from  which  was  first  derived  the  authority  to 
inaugurate  in  America  the  popular  political  prin- 
ciples on  which  our  country  was  founded,  and  to 
prove  that  so  far  from  the  question  of  our  earli- 
est history  being  one  of  a  sectional  character  it  is 
one  of  mutual  interest  and  importance  to  both 
sections  of  our  country.  It  is  with  this  object 
that  I  call  attention  to  the  facts  —  that  New 
England  was  first  settled  under  those  charters 
and  afterwards  perpetuated  under  a  charter  based 
on  them,  and  that  Charles  I.  for  similar  reasons 
yielded  to  the  Massachusetts  Corporation  sim- 
ilar political  rights  to  those  which  James  I.  had 
formerly  yielded  to  the  Virginia  Corporation. 
Charles  I.  did  not  commit  the  historic  wrong  of 
having  the  charter  of  the  Massachusetts  body 


214  OF  THE  CHARTERS 

jiolitic  annulled,  records  confiscated,  and  history 
publislied ;  but  North  Virginians  are  really  as 
much  interested  in  correcting  the  wrong  done  by 
James  I.  as  South  Virginians  are,  yet  sectional 
opinions  seem  to  be  the  greatest  obstacles  now 
in  the  way  of  the  correction  of  the  wrong.  It  is 
essential  to  show  that  these  influences  cannot  be 
fairly  called  upon  in  this  matter.  The  patriotic 
citizens  of  North  and  of  South  Virginia  were 
certainly  equally  interested  in  securing  the  char- 
ter rights  of  which  James  I.  and  his  successors 
wished  to  deprive  our  forefathers ;  and  by  the 
same  token  North  and  South  Virginians  are 
equally  interested  in  securing  the  historic  hon- 
ors of  which  James  I.  did  deprive  our  patriotic 
founders.  Our  founders,  at  the  expense  of  their 
blood  and  treasure,  first  settled  this  country  upon 
popular  political  charter  rights.  The  crown,  wish- 
ing to  deprive  them  of  those  rights,  suppressed 
the  facts,  compiled  documents,  and  licensed  his- 
tories to  justify  the  act.  Our  forefathers,  at  the 
expense  of  their  blood  and  treasure,  finally  se- 
cured those  rights  to  this  country,  and  there  is 
no  reason  why  any  citizen  of  this  republic  should 
follow  evidences  written  to  prove  that  those 
rights  ought  not  to  have  been  granted  in  the  first 
place  and  ought  to  have  been  annulled  by  the 
crown.  It  is  not  possible  to  make  a  sectional 
matter  of  this  historic  question.  The  patriotic 
citizens  of  North  Virginia,  and  of  every  portion 


OF  THE  CHARTERS  0,5 

of  the  United  States  who  appreciate  tlie  v.due  of 
popular  political  principles  of  government,  are  as 
much  obliged  to  protect  the  true  history  of  tlio 
primal  institution  of  those  principles  in  our  coun- 
try from  the  effects  of  the  original  Iiistoric  wrong 
as  the  citizens  of  South  Virginia.  The  wron<r 
■was  committed  under  the  auspices  of  the  national 
government  of  England.  North  Virginian  his- 
torians have  probably  done  as  much  as  those  of 
South  Virginia  towards  perpetuating  it.  The 
duty  of  correcting  the  wrong  is  a  national  one ; 
it  falls  alike  on  every  citizen  of  the  republic  to 
venerate  and  protect  everything  relative  to  our 
patriotic  founders. 

The  eyes  of  all  Europe  ^  had  been  looking 
upon  the  endeavors  of  the  patriotic  managers  of 
the  Virginia  enterprise  to  plant  an  English  na- 
tion in  America  for  many  years,  and  when  the 
Old  World  saw  that  the  popular  American  idea  of 
our  patriotic  founders,  "  in\4ting  people  to  with- 
draw themselves  from  an  oppressing  into  a  more 
free  government  establishing  in  Virginia,"  was 
inspiring  the  English  plantation  with  vitality,  in 
the  face  of  great  obstacles,  where  there  had  been 
only  failure  before,  companies  or  corporations 
with  similar  aspirations  were  chartered  in  Eng- 
land, Holland,^  and  other  nations,  with  ])olitical 
as  well  as  commercial  privileges ;  and  the  inspi- 

^  See  The  Genesia  of  the  United  States,  vol.  i.  p.  4();{. 
'^  See  The  First  Republic  in  America,  pp.  450,  4J)2. 


216  OF  THE  CORPORATION 

ration  spread  until  it  covered  the  American  Con- 
tinent. It  is  still  spreading.  Our  popular  polit- 
ical system  has  not  only  kept  freedom  alive  in 
the  New  World,  hut  has  reinvigorated  it  in  the  Old 
World.  ^  The  ideas  flowing  through  the  young 
blood  o£  American  Liberty  have  been  transfused 
into  some  of  the  aged  systems  of  European  polity, 
and  by  a  more  healthful  and  generous  circulation 
has  restored  them  in  a  degree  to  youth,  activity, 
and  strength.' 

CHAPTER  ni 

THE  CHARACTER  OF  THE  CORPORATION  WHICH 
CONDUCTED  THE  POLITICAL  MOVEMENT  AS 
REPRESENTED  IN  THE  CROWN  EVIDENCES, 
AND    AS    IT   REALLY   WAS 

In  order  to  give  a  correct  idea  of  the  charters, 
I  have  in  the  previous  chapter  given  a  general 
idea  of  the  companies  incorporated  by  them ;  but 
I  wish  to  give  a  more  detailed  account  of  the 
Virginia  companies.  The  importance  of  the  en- 
terprise from  the  first  cannot  be  denied  ;  but  the 
Virginia  Company,  to  which  certain  privileges 
were  granted  in  the  charter  of  1606,  cannot  be 
considered  as  a  free  political  agent  in  such  a  mat- 
ter as  the  beginning  of  a  nation,  for  it  was  entirely 
under  the  government  of  James  I.  Whatever 
was  accomplished  under  this  company  would  uat- 


OF  THE   CORPORATION  '217 

iirally  be  attributed  by  the  Court  party  (^'tlie 
powers  that  be  ")  to  the  wisdom  and  p'nius  of 
the  king  through  his  representatives,  who  were 
the  managers  of  the  government ;  wliileall  l)laint* 
would  be  laid  on  the  company  officials,  who  were 
the  managers  of  the  business.  And  under  the 
poHtical  influence  of  these  circumstances  the  his- 
tory licensed  by  the  crown  is  devoted  to  giving 
an  overshadowing  prominence  to  what  was  done 
under  the  king's  administration ;  while  it  omits 
or  belittles  or  criticises  nearly  everything  done, 
not  only  by  the  managers  of  the  business  during 
1606-1609,  but  also  by  the  political  corporation 
which  really  laid  the  foundation  of  tlie  nation 
during  1610-1624.  James  I.  wished  to  rob  the 
political  movement  of  all  honors,  and  the  licensed 
history  not  only  omitted  the  popular  cliartcrs, 
but  an  entirely  incorrect  idea  is  conveyed  of  the 
body  politic  incorporated  by  them.  It  is  neces- 
sary to  have  a  correct  idea  of  the  character  of 
this  political  corporation  in  order  to  understand 
the  case  of  our  founders ;  and  among  the  nu- 
merous confused  and  false  impressions  produced 
of  this  political  body  by  the  crown  evidences  it 
is  especially  important  to  correct  the  following 
ideas  frequently  found  in  histories  :  That  "  The 
Virginia  Court,"  which  met  in  London  from 
1612  to  1624,  was  "  The  Virginia  Company  ;  " 
that  "  the  colony  in  Virginia  was  tlie  property  of 
a  Company  in  Loudon  ; "  that  "  the  colony  in 


218  OF  THE   CORPORATION 

Virginia  was  ruled  by  a  Company  in  London  ;  " 
and  that  this  "  Company  in  London  "  was  "  an 
ordinary  joint-stock  company,"  "  a  strictly  com- 
mercial company,"  "a  company  for  trade,"  "a 
company  of  merchants,"  "  the  proprietor  of  Vir- 
ginia in  the  same  sense  that  Lord  Baltimore  was 
the  proprietor  of  Maryland,"  etc. 

It  is  true  that  the  enterprise  was  carried  on  at 
the  expense  of  a  company  of  adventurers  while 
it  was  under  the  king's  government  (1606-1609), 
which  hoped  to  be  reimbursed  by  finding  gold, 
a  ready  way  to  the  South  Sea,  or  other  present 
profit.  But  after  1609  the  movement  was  car- 
ried on  by  a  "  corporation  and  body  politic," 
composed  of  both  adventurers  of  the  purse  and 
planters  of  the  country,  having  other  aspirations 
and  inspirations  besides  those  of  trade  and  per- 
sonal profit,  incorporated  at  a  time  when  it  was 
really  known  that  the  Indians  of  Virginia  had 
"  little  to  trade  for  but  dried  mulberryes  ; "  at 
a  time  when  the  dangerous  character  of  the  cli- 
mate and  of  the  Indians  of  Virginia  had  been 
found  out,  as  well  as  the  numerous  difficulties, 
at  home  and  abroad,  by  land  and  by  sea,  which 
would  have  to  be  met  and  overcome  at  the  ex- 
pense of  the  corporation.  It  is  true  that  the 
expense  of  conducting  the  movement  was  borne 
entirely  under  the  joint-stock  system  for  the  first 
seven  years  (1609-1616)  and  partly  so  after- 
wards.   But  the  object  of  this  was  not  ordinary 


OF  THE   CORPORATION  -Jl'j 

trade ;  the  plan  was  adopted  in  order  to  enal)le 
the  body  poHtic  to  secure  their  country  at  the 
expense  of  the  corporation  without  aid  from  the 
crown.  The  real  stock  was  not  stock  in  trade, 
but  stock  in  a  new  dominion  in  ^\  hich  they  could 
govern  themselves.  It  is  true  that  after  a  ^imhI 
many  years  the  corporation  was  so  fortunate  as 
to  find  in  tobacco  a  payinj^  Virg-inia  commodity  ; 
but,  as  Gondomar  well  said,  there  were  farther 
designs  than  the  making  of  a  tobacco  plantation. 

It  is  true  that  Sir  Thomas  Smith  was  inter- 
ested in,  and  was  a  leading  advocate  in  Parlia- 
ment of,  the  trading  companies ;  was  a  protec- 
tionist, and  came  to  be  regarded  as  a  monopolist 
by  some  members  of  the  Virginia  courts ;  but  it 
is  equally  true  that  Sir  Edwin  Sandys,  the  leader 
in  the  political  features  of  the  movement,  was 
bitterly  opposed  to  these  trusts,  and  was  an  ear- 
nest advocate  of  free  trade.  Both  protectionists 
and  free-traders  had  each  been  opposed  by  the 
Court  party  in  some  respects,  and  each  of  these 
men  had  been  elected  to  preside  over  the  supreme 
court  of  our  original  body  politic,  not  because  of 
their  opinions  regarding  trade,  but  because  they 
were  regarded  politically  as  Patriots  ;  and  when 
Smith's  patriotism  came  to  be  questioned  lie 
found  it  asfreeable  to  withdraw. 

It  seems  well  to  explain  here  that  there  were 
many  trust  companies  at  that  time,  and  the  Vir- 
ginia Corporation  has  sometimes  been  confused 


220  OF  THE  CORPORATION 

with  them  and  described  as  "  a  syndicate  or 
trust."  It  is  true  that  some  members  of  the 
trusts  were  also  members  of  this  company  ;  but 
it  was  opposite  to  a  trust,  it  was  really  an  unlim- 
ited popular  body  in  which  the  leaders  of  its 
political  features  were  the  leading  opponents  of 
these  trusts.  When  the  list  of  monopolies  (which 
were  being  protested  against  by  the  Patriot 
party)  was  read  in  Parhament,  William  Hake- 
well,  of  this  Virginia  Corporation,  called  out  to 
know  if  "  bread  were  among  them."  Early  in 
1610  Hakewell  maintained  "  The  Liberty  of  the 
subject,"  in  an  able  argument  before  Parhament, 
which,  owing  to  the  censorship  of  the  press,  was 
not  pubhshed  until  after  1641. 

The  corporate  or  corporation  system  admin- 
istered on  a  popular  plan  was  the  seed  of  the 
American  idea  of  o^overnment.  The  charters  of 
1609  and  1612  were  granted  to  an  incorporation, 
composing  a  political  body  of  planters  of  the 
country  and  adventurers  of  the  purse,  organ- 
ized for  the  purpose  of  acquiring  the  lands  of 
South  Virginia  at  their  own  expense,  and  of  in- 
stituting therein  a  government  —  "  on  the  con- 
sent of  the  people,  by  the  people,  for  the  people  " 
—  in  accord  with  the  constitutions  of  England, 
but  as  interpreted  in  the  most  beneficial  manner 
for  the  body  politic,  which  was  destined  to  become 
the  people  —  the  citizens  —  of  that  territory. 

As  soon  as  the  members  of  this  body  began 


OF  THE  CORPORATION  lilil 

the  institution  of  their  popuhir  pohtical  phins  in 
that  territory,  "the  popularnes  of  the  jrovcni- 
ment  o£  the  corporation  became  displeasing^  to 
his  Majesty  ;  "  he  determined  to  annul  the  po- 
litical charters  in  order  to  make  the  corporation 
"  a  company  for  trade,  but  not  for  government 
of  the  country,"  and  to  take  care  of  the  govern- 
ment himself. 

It  is  true  that  some  members  of  the  corpora- 
tion, who  were  unwilling  to  contend  with  James  I. 
about  the  government,  were  willing  to  give  up 
their  political  and  property  charter  rights,  and 
to  allow  the  political  corporation  to  be  superseded 
by  a  trading  company  according  to  the  desire  of 
the  crown,  and  that  it  was  sometimes  called  by 
contemporaries,  "  A  Company  of  English  mer- 
chants trading  to  Virginia  ;  "  but  as  Strype  well 
says,  "  the  trading  company  was  never  incorpo- 
rated." The  political  principles,  the  right  of  the 
people  "for  government  of  the  Country,"  were 
never  entirely  superseded  by  the  crown  ;  and  re- 
gardless of  the  desires  of  the  Court  party  as  ex- 
pressed in  the  history  licensed  by  the  crown,  and 
in  other  evidences  of  the  crown,  the  fact  remains 
that  the  orofanization  which  founded  the  first 
English  colony  in  our  country  was  a  company 
in  the  sense  of  "  a  corporation  and  body  poli- 
tic "  (composed  of  adventurers  of  the  purse, 
planters  of  the  country,  and  their  successors  for- 
ever, not  restricted  in  numbers  and  only  partially 


222  OF  THE  CORPORATION 

SO  as  to  nationality^).  And  this  popular  politi- 
cal body  was  the  proprietor  of  South  Virginia  in 
very  nearly  the  same  sense  that  a  similar  body 
afterwards  became  the  proprietor  of  North  Vir- 
ginia, and  that  our  national  corporation  and  body 
politic  is  now  the  proprietor  of  this  country. 

At  the  Virocinia  Court  in  London  held  on 
June  19,  1619,  the  auditors  of  the  corporation, 
who  had  been  ^'  dioresting-  of  the  old  accounts  " 
down  to  the  end  of  the  first  joint  stock  (Decem- 
ber 10, 1616),  were  required  to  extend  their  work 
to  May  8,  1619.  The  task  was  found  to  be  very 
difficult,  and  the  Virginia  Court  of  December  25, 

1619,  in  order  to  expedite  the  auditing,  deter- 
mined to  publish  the  names  of  every  adventurer, 
with  their  several  sums  adventured,  and  appointed 
Sir  Edwin  Sandys  and  Dr.  Thomas  Winstone  to 
draft  the  said  publication.  The  following  audi- 
tors were,  from  first  to  last,  employed  in  compil- 
ing and  verifying  this  list :  Sir  Edwin  Sandys, 
Sir  John  Danvers,  Mr.  John  Wroth,  Mr.  John 
Ferrar,  Mr.  Thomas  Keightley,  Mr.  Henry 
Briggs,  Mr.  William  Cranmer,  Mr.  William  Es- 
sington,  Mr.  Richard  Wiseman,  Mr.  George 
Chambers,  Mr.  Morris  Abbott,  Mr.  Humphrey 
Handford,  and  Mr.  Anthony  Abdy.  Both  the 
Sandys  and  Smythe  parties  in  the  company  were 
represented.     A  license  was  granted  on  July  21, 

1620,  and    the  Hst  was  published,  "that    Pos- 

1  See  The  Charter  of  1612,  Arts.  I.,  X.,  XI.,  etc. 


OF  THE  COKPO RATION  003 

teritie  may  truely  know  by  whoso  cliariros  this 
Plantation  hath  beene  happily  t'oinuk-cl,  main- 
tained, and  continued."  In  case  any  one  had  not 
received  his  due  credit,  "  if  within  one  twelve 
moneth  after  the  date  hereof  he  give  notice  and 
make  proof  thereof  to  the  Companies  Auditors, 
he  shall  be  set  right/  and  the  Table  reformed  : 
there  being  not  anything  more  dear  unto  us 
than  to  do  right  unto  them  with  all  justifiable 
curtesie,  who  have  beene  beginners  and  contin- 
uers  of  this  glorious  work,"  etc. 

The  value  of  this  list  with  the  simis  paid  by 
each  cannot  be  overestimated,  for  it  really  does 
enable  "  posteritie  to  know  truely  "  whose  "  trea- 
sure" had  founded,  maintained,  and  continued 
the  plantation  up  to  December  10,  IGIG,  and  in 
part  to  May,  1619.  The  sums  did  not  include 
the  amounts  paid  by  private  planters  after  IGIG, 
nor  the  amounts  received  from  the  lotteries  since 
1612,  for  which  they  thanked,  or  pretended  to 
thank,  James  I.,  although  "  he  never  contributed 
one  farthing  himself  in  them."  The  complete 
list  contains  nearly  nine  hundred  adventurers 
who  had  adventured  about  $1,000,000,  at  present 
values. 

In  his  books  Captain  John  Smith  virtually 
claims  to  having  founded,  maintained,  and  con- 
tinued the  plantation  pretty  much    by  himself, 

1  I  have  made  use  of  this  list  as  corrected  in  the  hiograpbies 
given  in  The  Genesis  of  the  United  States,  pp.  SIO-IOGT. 


224  OF  THE  CORPORATION 

for  several  years,  at  an  expense  of  more  than 
five  hundred  pounds  of  his  own  estate,  etc.  In 
this  Hst  he  is  credited  with  having  paid  only 
nine  pounds.  Before  the  year  of  grace  allowed 
claimants  had  expired.  Captain  Smith  appeared 
before  the  Virginia  Court  (May  12,  1621)  and 
put  in  a  claim,  not  on  the  ground  that  Sir 
Thomas  Smith  had  failed  to  give  him  credit 
for  over  four  hundred  and  ninety-one  pounds, 
but  for  services  which,  "  as  he  allegeth,"  he  had 
performed  in  Virginia.  The  opponents  of  Sir 
Thomas  Smith,  who  were  then  controlling  the 
business  and  searching  for  evidences  against  Sir 
Thomas  in  these  very  premises,  would  have  been 
very  willing  to  allow  this  claim  (as  they  did  al- 
low the  claims  of  others)  if  at  all  just ;  but  the 
petition  was  referred  to  the  committees  appointed 
for  the  rewarding  of  men  upon  merits,  and  they 
allowed  Captain  Smith  nothing. 

This  list  is  the  only  one  of  the  numerous  pub- 
lications of  the  managers  which  contains  the 
name  of  Captain  John  Smith  ;  and  the  only  re- 
ference to  him  that  I  have  found  in  the  records 
of  the  Virginia  courts  in  London  is  in  connec- 
tion with  the  aforesaid  petition  of  May,  1621. 
The  only  reference  to  him  that  I  have  found  in 
the  records  of  the  courts  held  in  Virginia,  so  far 
as  they  have  been  preserved,  is  in  the  deposition 
of  Robert  Poole  and  Edward  Grindon  on  No- 
vember 11,  1624,  to  the  effect  that  he  was  the 


OF  THE  CORPORATION  22r, 

first  Englishman  to  teach  the  Indians  the  usr; 
of  firearms.  In  his  hooks  ho  cliar<,n's  Ycaidlcy 
and  other  officers  of  the  corporation  with  hav- 
ing done  this.  In  brief,  save  for  the  evidences 
of  the  crown  or  crown  evidences, — and  especi- 
ally those  contributed  by  himself,  —  the  historian 
licensed  under  the  crown  would  be  almost  an 
unknown  quantity  in  our  earliest  history. 

The  alphabetical  list  of  adventurers  published 
by  the  managers  in  1620  was  reprinted  in 
Smith's  history  in  1624,  but  the  reprint  was  not 
complete :  it  conveys  no  idea  of  the  importance 
of  the  original,  the  amounts  paid  in  by  each  jier- 
son  being  omitted.  And  as  a  further  illustration 
of  the  historian's  mode  of  compiling,  it  will  be 
noted  that  the  name  of  his  old  patron,  "  Ed- 
ward Semer  Earle  of  Hartford,"  who  was  not  an 
adventurer,  had  contributed  nothing  to  the  en- 
terprise, was  inserted. 

It  must  be  remembered  that  this  published 
list  only  pretends  to  give  the  adventurers  of  the 
purse.  It  is  not  a  complete  list  of  the  body 
politic  at  that  time.  The  planters  who  went 
over  in  person,  paying  their  own  way,  n.nd  those 
sent  over  at  the  expense  of  the  corporation  fund 
(after  they  had  served  out  their  time  in  repay- 
ment of  the  advance),  became  freemen,  citizens, 
voters,  and  members  of  the  political  body.  A 
complete  record  of  the  planters  and  of  those 
sent  over  was  kept  j  but  as  it  was  among  the 


226  OF  THE  CORPORATION 

records  confiscated  by  the  crown,  and  as  no  com- 
plete copy  has  been  found,  many  of  their  names 
have  been  unfortunately  lost. 

As  the  movement  in  the  beginning"  was  car- 
ried on  largely  at  the  expense  of  the  adventurers 
of  the  purse,  their  position  may  be  considered 
as  at  first  of  the  greatest  importance,  especially 
as  those  who  paid  in  as  much  as  <£12.10  —  say 
$300  now  —  were  also  landowners  in  the  col- 
ony. But  as  the  movement  progressed  under  the 
proposed  system,  as  the  country  became  more 
securely  settled,  and  after  a  proper  form  of  gov- 
ernment was  instituted  therein,  the  planters  in- 
creasing more  and  more  would  naturally  become 
the  majority  and  control  the  country  ;  but  there 
was  nothing  to  prevent  the  adventurers,  or  their 
heirs,  from  coming  over  and  settling  on  their 
lands  in  the  country  themselves.  Many  of  them 
did  so,  and  this  was  probably  the  ultimate  object 
of  most  of  them,  as  indicated  in  Coventry's 
speech  in  the  Quo  Warranto  case  in  June,  1624. 

The  motive  of  the  patriotic  members  (both 
adventurers  and  planters)  of  the  corporation  was 
really  the  same.  In  order  to  secure  their  polit- 
ical and  property  charter  rights,  the  "  adven- 
turer "  contributed  his  "  treasure,"  and  the 
"planter"  devoted  his  life  "blood."  Some  of 
the  adventurers  of  the  purse  through  discontent, 
through  opposition  to  the  advance  political  pur- 
poses of  the  Patriots  when  they  became  known, 


OF  THE   CORPORATION  227 

or  other  cause,  refused  to  pay  tlu'lr  dues  ;  and 
some  of  the  planters  deserted  tlie  colony,  and 
thus  ceased  to  be  members  of  the  body  politic. 
Of  the  adventurers  who  remained  members, 
some  of  them,  or  their  heirs,  came  over,  settled 
on  their  lands,  and  became  planters;  some  sold 
their  lands  to  others  who  became  planters ;  and 
others  had  their  estates  in  Virg^inia  mana<red  for 
them  by  planters.  All  of  those  who  comjjlied 
with  the  requirements  of  the  corporation,  botli 
adventurers  and  planters,  they  and  their  poster- 
ity and  successors,  were  equally  members  of  the 
political  body  (citizens  of  Virginia),  and  heirs  to 
the  political  privileges  and  charter  rights  forever. 

The  colony  under  the  proposed  system,  al- 
thousfh  attached  to  the  crown  of  Great  Britain, 
naturally  drifted  farther  and  farther  away  from 
the  crown.  The  Court  party  controlled  the  evi- 
dences, and  the  acts  of  the  Patriot  party  were 
kept  almost  out  of  sight  in  our  annals  ;  but  when 
the  proper  time  came  for  our  independence, 
although  Tories  were  still  governing  in  the  colo- 
nies, the  Patriots  were  found  to  be  sufficiently 
strong  to  secure  it. 

Jefferson  was  correct  when  he  said  that  "  the 
ball  of  the  Revolution  received  its  first  impulse, 
not  from  the  actors  in  that  event,  but  from 
the  first  colonists."  The  Virginia  companies  (»f 
1606  were  superseded  by  corporations  and  bod- 
ies politic  which  secured  and  founded  the  first 


228     OF  THE  FORMS  OF  GOVERNMENT 

English  colonies  in  the  present  United  States,  — 
under  their  own  management,  at  the  exjDense  o£ 
their  own  blood  and  treasure,  on  their  popular 
political  principles  of  government,  unassisted  hy 
the  crown,  and  regardless  of  the  opposition  of 
the  Court  party.  The  records  of  the  primary 
body  politic  were  confiscated  by  the  crown,  false 
ideas  of  that  body  were  conveyed  in  the  history 
licensed  under  the  crown  and  perpetuated  both 
under  the  crown  and  under  the  Republic  ;  but 
the  fact  remains  that  the  foundation  of  this  na- 
tion was  laid  upon  the  immortal  principles  which 
are  still  giving  it  vitahty,  and  that  the  heart  of 
the  political  body  which  planted  the  germ  of  the 
popular  course  of  government  in  our  country 
has  never  ceased  to  beat. 

CHAPTER  IV 

THE   FORMS     OF     GOVERNMENT     AT     ISSUE THE 

FORM  DESIGNED  FOR  THE  AMERICAN  PLANTA- 
TIONS BY  JAMES  I.,  WHICH  WAS  ADVOCATED 
BY  THE  COURT  PARTY,  VS.  THE  FORM  DE- 
SIGNED FOR  THEIR  SOUTH  VIRGINIAN  TERRI- 
TORY BY  THE  CORPORATION  AND  BODY  POLI- 
TIC, WHICH  WAS  ADVOCATED  BY  THE  PATRIOT 
PARTY 

The  Court  party  and  the  historian  licensed  by 
the  crown  contended  that  the  colony  of  Virginia 


OF  THE  FORMS   OF  GOVERNMENT  2*J0 

■was  founded  under  a  form  of  government  do- 
signed  by  James  I.,  and  that  the  great  reform 
movement  for  inaugurating  the  popular  cour.se 
of  government  in  this  country  resulted  in  failure. 
But  there  is  now  sufficient  evidence  to  show  that 
the  ideas  conveyed  by  the  crown  evidences  as 
to  the  opposing  forms  of  government  and  as  to 
their  effect  on  the  plantations  are  not  correct. 
As  a  matter  of  fact  it  was  the  kino-'s  form  of 
government,  of  which  the  historian  was  a  repre- 
sentative, that  failed.  And  it  was  the  poi)ular 
course  of  government,  to  which  the  historian  was 
opposed,  that  lighted  the  lamp  of  liberty  and 
kindled  the  fires  of  political  independence  in  this 
country  which  have  never  failed. 

Rev.  Mr.  Stith^  published  for  the  first  time 
an  outline  of  the  king's  form  under  which  the 
South  Virginia  plantation  was  governed  from 
1607  to  1610.  This  outline,  compiled  from  the 
notes  of  Sir  John  Randolph,  is  as  follows :  "  I 
shall  only  transiently  remark,"  says  Stith,  "  that 
notwithstanding  the  frequent  Repetition  of  the 
Laws  of  England  and  the  Equity  thereof,  his 
Majesty  seems,  in  some  things,  to  have  deviated 
grossly  from  them.  He  has  certainly  made  suf- 
ficient Provision  for  his  own  despotic  Authority  ; 
and  has  attributed  [conferred]  an  extravagant 
and  illeofal  Power  to  the  Presidents  and  Councils. 
For  he  has  placed  the  whole  Legislative  Powir 

1  See  his  History  of  Virginia  (1717),  p.  U. 


230    OF  THE  FORMS  OF  GOVERNMENT 

solely  in  them,  without  any  Representative  of  the 
People,  contrary  to  a  noted  Maxim  of  the  Eng- 
lish Constitution  ;  That  all  Freemen  are  to  be 
governed  by  Laws,  made  with  their  own  consent, 
either  in  Person,  or  by  their  Representatives. 
He  has  also  appointed  Juries  only  in  Cases  of 
Life  and  Death ;  and  has  left  all  other  Points, 
relating  to  the  Liberty  and  private  Property  of 
the  subject,  wholly  to  the  Pleasure  and  Deter- 
mination of  the  Presidents  and  Councils,"  etc. 
Mr.  Stith  failed  to  note  the  important  fact  that 
the  colony  was  not  only  under  the  king's  form 
of  government,  but  also  under  the  king's  offi- 
cials. "  Tlie  Presidents  and  Councils "  were 
"  all  nominated  by  his  Majesty,"  appointed  under 
and  responsible  to  the  crown.  They  were  the 
king^s  rejjresentatlves,  not  the  company^s,  in 
"Virginia.  This  company  had  not  the  right  of 
self-government. 

Although  the  body  politic  of  1609  had  ob- 
tained the  privilege  of  "  governing  themselves," 
there  was  need  for  discretion  in  proceeding  with 
their  plans.  The  charters  were  so  designed  and 
the  authority  derived  from  them  so  executed,  as 
not  to  create  suspicion  by  causing  the  king's  ab- 
solute authority  over  the  enterprise  to  pass  from 
him  immediately  but  gradually,  until  in  due  time 
the  political  body  would  be  enabled  to  establish 
a  popular  course  of  government  in  Virginia  in 
which  the  people,  the  planters,  should  have  an 


OF  THE  FORMS  OF  GOVERNMENT  'J31 

independent  political  power.  In  Enrrland  the 
members  of  the  first  lung's  council  fur  the  cor- 
poration were  appointed  by  James  I.  in  the  char- 
ter of  1609,  but  subsequent  members  were  to  be 
"  freely  "  elected  by  the  Corporation  ;  and  thus  in 
a  few  years  the  supreme  authority  of  the  move- 
ment really  passed  into  the  Quarter  Court  of  the 
Virginia  Corporation,  which  came  to  be  regarded 
as  "  a  Seminary  of  Sedition  "  by  the  crown. 

In  Virginia  the  government  was  for  sufficient 
reason  at  first  placed  by  the  supreme  council  in 
England  (which  had  first  been  appointed  by 
James  I.)  in  charge  of  an  absolute  governor, 
who  appointed  his  own  council  in  the  colony  ; 
but  this  also  changed  as  the  movement  advanced, 
until  the  governor  and  his  council  in  Virginia 
were  "freely  elected"  by  the  majority  of  the 
votes  cast  by  the  adventurers  and  planters  (the 
landowners  in  Virginia)  in  the  General  Quar- 
terly Courts  then  held  in  London.  Thus  they 
were  the  officials  not  of  the  crown,  but  of  the 
Virginian  Corporation,  being  elected  by  and  re- 
sponsible to  that  body ;  and  a  House  of  Bur- 
gesses was  freely  elected  by  the  votes  of  all  the 
men  on  the  different  "Burgs"  in  Virginia, 
whether  they  owned  land  or  not,  this  body  being 
the  chosen  representative  of  the  planters  —  the 
people  of  Virginia. 

This  issue  was  probably  the  chief  cause  of  the 
commission  of  the  original  wrong  by  James  1., 


232     OF  THE  FORMS  OF  GOVERNMENT 

and  therefore  it  is  very  important  to  understand 
clearly  this  portion  of  the  controversy.  I  wish 
to  make  the  case  as  clear  as  I  can. 

Under  the  charter  of  1606  the  government 
of  the  companies  and  plantations  was  under  offi- 
cials appointed  under  the  crown,  amenable  to 
the  crown,  and  under  a  form  of  government 
designed  by  James  I. 

In  order  to  alter  this  form  of  ofovernment 
and  for  other  reasons  already  given,  the  charter 
of  1609  was  obtained,  under  which  the  officials 
were  first  appointed  by  James  I.,  but  were  after- 
wards elected  by  the  majority  of  the  company. 
See  Articles  IX.,  XI.,  XIII.,  XIV.,  and  XXIII. 

In  order  to  still  further  "  better  the  govern- 
ment of  the  company  and  the  colony,"  etc.,  the 
charter  of  1612  was  obtained,  under  which  the 
Great  and  General  Quarter  Courts  (composed  of 
members  both  of  the  council  and  of  the  general- 
ity) of  the  corporation  had  a  general  supervision 
over  the  government  of  the  colony.^  The  acts 
of  the  Assembly  in  Virginia  were  at  first  subject 
to  review  by  these  supreme  courts,  for  in  the 
beginning  all  things  were  in  a  formative  state ; 
but  "  after  the  colony  was  well  framed  and  set- 
tled, no  order  of  the  Quarter  Court  was  to  be 
binding  on  the  colony  until  it  was  ratified  by 
the  General  Assembly  in  Virginia,"  and  no 
taxes,  revenues,  etc.,  were  to  be  imposed  on  the 

1  Article  VIII. 


OF  THE  FORMS  OF  GOVERNMENT  -:« 

colonists  "  other  ways  than  by  the  authority  of 
the  said  Assembly."  London  and  Vir^rlni;i  ^Vc-re 
in  the  same  empire.  The  Vii-crlnia  Corporation 
had  interests  in  London  as  well  as  in  Virginia, 
and  these  supreme  courts  were  held  in  London  ; 
but,  as  was  afterwards  the  ease  in  the  Massaclui- 
setts  charter,  there  was  nothing  in  the  Vir<rinia 
charter  of  1612  to  prevent  the  removal  of  these 
courts  to  Virginia  whenever  it  became  to  the 
interest  of  the  colony  to  do  so.  And  the  first 
thing  that  James  I.  did  after  the  charters  were 
annulled  was  to  suppress  these  courts. 

James  I.  was  really  bitterly  opposed  to  the 
popular  course  of  government  which  the  Vir- 
ginia Corporation  was  inaugurating  in  this  coun- 
try, and  had  evidently  granted  the  political 
privileges  to  that  corporation  (to  pull  the  chest- 
nut out  of  the  fire)  in  order  to  have  the  colonies 
secured  and  founded  without  any  expense  to  the 
crown  ;  for  as  soon  as  the  country  was  thus  se- 
cured, he  determined  to  annul  the  popular  char- 
ters, to  make  the  body  politic  "  a  company  for 
trade,  but  not  for  government  of  the  country  " 
—  which  was  the  business  of  kings  and  not  of 
people  —  and  to  resume  the  government  of  the 
country  himself. 

Althoug-h  the  Virjrinia  courts  which  had  met 
in  England  were  suppressed  by  the  crown,  and  in 
lieu  thereof  the  colonial  affairs  were  managed 
in  England  by  royal  commissioners,  plantation 


234     OF  THE  FORMS  OF  GOVERNMENT 

hoards,  etc.,  from  1624  to  1776  —  under  Provi- 
dence the  body  politic  (generally  called  in  his- 
tory "  The  Virginia  Company  of  London  ")  was 
never  really  destroyed  ;  the  members  thereof  in 
the  colony  —  the  citizens  of  Virginia  —  were  al- 
lowed by  the  crown  to  retain  some  of  their  polit- 
ical charter  rights,  freedoms,  and  privileges,  and 
they  never  ceased  to  claim  the  rest.  They  had 
tasted  the  sweets  of  self-government,  a  flavor 
once  tasted  never  to  be  forgotten.  The  peti- 
tions presented  to  the  crown  from  time  to  time, 
from  1624  to  1774,  by  the  Patriot  party  of  Vir- 
ginia, were  for  the  restitution  of  their  popular 
charters  ;  for  the  colonial  affairs  to  be  again  man- 
aged by  courts  of  the  corporation,  instead  of  by 
royal  commissions,  etc. ;  or  for  some  special  poht- 
ical  or  property  charter  right  of  which  they  had 
been  deprived  by  the  crown.  Of  course,  there 
was  no  need  to  petition  for  the  restitution  of  "  a 
Proprietary  Company,"  or  for  any  other  kind  of 
company  which  had  never  existed  in  the  pre- 
mises ;  nor  for  any  charter  right  which  had  not 
been  taken  away ;  but  the  Royalist  party,  to 
offset  the  petitions  of  the  Patriots  sometimes  sent 
in  counter  petitions,  in  which  they  present  the 
issues  from  the  political  point  of  view  of  the 
Court  party,  which,  it  can  now  be  proven,  was 
always  misleading  and  unjust  to  the  Patriot  party. 
No  government  was  ever  instituted  in  which 
the  political  principles  of  a  government  of  the 


OF  THE   FORMS  OF  GOVKIINMENT  23.". 

people,  for  the  people,  by  the  people  were  car- 
ried farther  than  in  the  representative  or  popu- 
lar course  of  government  which  was  inau^i^uratcd 
in  this  country  by  the  founders  of  Soutli  Vir- 
ginia on  the  political  rights  derived  by  them 
from  the  charters  of  1G09  and  1012.  Every 
"  burg  "  or  corporation  was  represented  by  one 
of  its  people  in  the  House  of  Burgesses  from 
1619  to  1C34,  when  the  colony  was  first  divided 
into  shires  or  counties.  The  rig-ht  of  suifraire 
exercised  by  all  freemen  was  not  restricted  until 
the  Assembly  of  March,  1655,  limited  suffrage 
to  "  all  housekeepers,  freeholders,  leaseholders, 
or  tenants;  "  but  the  next  Assend)ly  of  March, 
1656,  "  thinking  it  somewhat  hard  and  unagree- 
able to  reason  that  any  persons  shall  pay  tjixes 
and  have  no  votes  in  election,"  restored  univer- 
sal suffrage,  with  the  i^rovlso  that  the  votes 
were  to  be  given  by  ballot  (the  original  —  1619- 
1646  —  plan)  instead  of  viva  voce  as  had  been 
the  law  from  1647  to  1655.  The  first  effectual 
restriction  of  suffrage  was  under  Charles  II. 
from  1670  to  1676,  to  freeholders  and  house- 
keepers. The  restrictive  clause  was  revoked  by 
Bacon's  Assembly  in  June,  1676,  and  universal 
suffrage  prevailed  during  1676-1684;  suffrage 
again  restricted  to  freeholders  and  housekeepers 
from  1684  to  1699  ;  and  in  1699  to  "  none  but 
freeholders;"  but  this  restriction  was  almost 
only  in  name,  as  the  owner  of  so  little  as  half  an 


23G  OF  THE  MANAGERS 

acre  was  regarded  as  a  freeholder  until  1736, 
when  definite  restriction  began ;  but  the  spirit 
of  liberty  in  the  hearts  of  the  people  was  never 
festricted.  The  summer  session  of  the  House  of 
Burgesses  in  1748  promised  to  be  almost  as  in- 
corrigible as  Bacon's  Assembly  in  1676,  but  the 
royal  governor  prorogued  the  body  and  after- 
wards dissolved  it  and  ordered  a  new  election. 
The  plan  having  met  with  success,  the  dissolv- 
ing of  the  House  of  Burgesses  became  more  and 
more  frequent  with  the  royal  governors  until  it 
aided  in  bringing  on  the  Revolution  which  dis- 
solved our  connection  with  the  royal  government. 
In  brief,  sufficient  evidence  for  the  Patriot 
party  has  been  providentially  preserved  to  prove 
that  "  the  plantations  in  America "  do  not  re- 
main as  a  lasting  monument  to  the  imperial 
form  of  government  designed  for  them  by 
James  I.,  but  that  they  do  remain  as  a  lasting 
monument  to  the  popular  course  of  government 
inaugurated  in  them  by  our  Patriot  founders. 

CHAPTER  V 

THE  CHARACTER  OF  "  THE  MANAGERS  OF  THE 
BUSINESS  "  IN  ENGLAND  AND  IN  VIRGINIA,  AND 
OTHER    ISSUES   OF   A   POLITICAL  NATURE 

The  Virginia   Company  of   1606-1609  con- 
ducted the  colonial  business  affairs  at  its  own 


OF  THE  MANAGERS  j.-jT 

expense;  but  the  political  manaf^emont  was 
under  James  I.  And  there  was  a  natural  dasli 
between  the  managers  of  the  business  for  the 
company,  and  the  royal  officials  who  manaj^cd 
the  government  for  the  crown.  Hence  imperial 
politics  had  as  bad  an  effect  on  the  royal  ac- 
counts of  the  managers  of  the  business  before  the 
enterprise  became  a  reform  movement  as  after. 
Much  of  the  history  licensed  under  the  crown  is 
really  an  adverse  criticism  of  the  managers  of 
the  business  —  of  those  who  paid  the  expenses, 
and  of  those  who  went  to  Virginia  —  from  lGO(j 
to  1624  ;  an  effort  to  show  their  incapacity,  lack 
of  judgment,  and  "  misgovernment,"  as  op})osed 
to  the  great  capacity  and  genius  of  the  histo- 
rian who  had  been  the  loyal  representative  of 
James  I.  There  is  little  if  any  evidence  to  prove 
the  capacity  of  this  historian  that  is  certainly 
fair  and  free  from  his  own  dictation  ;  but  there 
is  ample  evidence  to  show  that  the  leading  man- 
agers were  the  most  progressive  men  in  one  of 
the  most  remarkable  transition  periods  in  Eng- 
lish history,  and  that  they  were  showing  good 
judgment  by  adopting  the  principles  of  liberty 
which  have  sustained  this  nation  from  its  birth, 
which  the  Court  party  and  the  historian  consid- 
ered as  "misofovernment." 

Sir  Thomas  Smith  and  other  leading  managers 
of  the  corporation  for  the  period  of  1609-1018 
afterwards  affiliated  with   the  Court  party,  and 


238  OF  THE  MANAGERS 

not  only  made  no  effort  to  preserve  copies  of  the 
records  of  their  own  administration,  but  actually 
aided  the  crown  in  suppressing  them.  And 
while  the  manaofers  of  1619-1624  made  earnest 
efforts  to  preserve  their  own  evidence,  they  re- 
garded the  old  managers  as  then  being  their 
adversaries,  and  were,  also,  actually  disposed  to 
aid  the  Court  party  by  finding  fault  with  the 
management  during  that  period  —  not  only  by 
Sir  Thomas  Smith  in  England,  but  also  by  Dale, 
Gates,  and  others  in  Virginia.  And  this  evi- 
dence has  been  taken  as  corroborative  of  the 
royal  evidences,  but  the  motive  for  this  evidence 
is  self-evident.  And  even  if  there  were  no  other 
counter  evidence,  the  speech  of  Sir  Edward 
Sandys  himself  on  November  27,  1619,  in  praise 
of  the  services  of  Gates  and  Dale,  would  be 
sufficient. 

It  may  also  be  noted  that  when  John  Smith, 
of  Nibley,  in  April,  1621,  proposed  to  the  Vir- 
ginia Court  *  to  have  a  fair  and  perspicuous 
history  compiled  of  Virginia,'  one  of  his  especial 
objects  was  to  '  transmit  to  all  posterity  the 
memory  and  fame  of  Sir  Thomas  Dale,  the  Lord 
De  la  Warr,  and  Sir  Thomas  Gates,'  —  three  men 
"who  had  been  chief  managers  of  the  business  in 
Virginia  for  nearly  the  whole  of  the  imj^ortant 
crucial  period  from  May,  1610,  to  April,  1616. 
As  a  result  of  these  party  controversies  and  po- 
litical conditions,  the  authentic  evidences  for  the 


OF  THE  MANAGERS  239 

period  of  1609-1618  are  especially  incomplete, 
and  therefore  it  is  not  possible  to  correct  in  every 
detail  the  historic  wrong  done  the  niana^rers 
during  this  period;  but  we  now  know  tha*t  it 
was  in  many  respects  the  most  important  period 
in  our  history.  It  was  in  this  period  that  our 
first  political  charter  rights  were  obtained  ;  that 
the  most  serious  difficulties  in  Virginia  and  with 
Spain  were  to  a  large  degree  overcome  ;  that  the 
actual  hold  on  the  country  was  secured,  popular 
rights  inaugurated,  and  political  life  began. 

The  crown  evidences  are  unjust  to  the  man- 
agers of  the  business  for  the  whole  period  from 
1606  to  1624;  this  wrong  has  been  partially 
corrected,  however,  in  our  histories  by  Stith  and 
others  for  1619-1624 ;  but  beginning  with  the 
historian  licensed  by  the  crown  and  following 
him  as  an  authority  and  as  a  model,  some  of  our 
historians  have  almost  vied  with  each  other  in  an 
ungenerous,  unjust,  and  incorrect  treatment  of 
the  managers  of  this  movement  during  1606- 
1618,  and  especially  during  the  important  period, 
1609-1618.  The  intention  of  the  licensed  histo- 
rian in  doing  this  was  to  produce  the  impression 
that  the  alteration  from  the  kind's  manajrement  to 
that  of  the  corporation  was  for  the  worse.  And 
in  sustaining  this  historian,  subsequent  historians 
have  been  equally  unjust  to  the  managers;  they 
have  blamed  them  for  placing  the  colony  under 
martial  law ;  for  not  settlinjr  emijrrants  at  once 


240  OF  THE   MANAGERS 

on  lands  o£  their  own,  etc.,  —  regardless  of  the 
fact  that  it  would  evidently  have  been  folly  to 
attempt  a  settled  government  and  to  settle  defi- 
nite bounds  of  lands  before  the  country  itself 
was  practically  secured  from  the  Spaniards  or 
the  Indians.  The  conditions  were  such  that  for 
a  good  many  years  martial  law  was  necessary. 
In  fact  a  settled  government  and  land  grants 
were  instituted  as  soon  as  it  was  practicable  and 
advisable. 

The  accounts  of  the  planters  who  went,  and  of 
the  emigrants  who  were  sent  to  Virginia,  given 
in  the  crown  evidences,  are  very  unfavorable  to 
them ;  but  it  is  evident  that  they  were  a  repre- 
sentative body  composed  of  all  sorts  of  people, 
from  the  lowest  to  the  highest,  and  that  the 
worst  were  those  sent  over  by  order  of  the 
crown. 

The  political  point  of  view  has  as  much  to  do 
with  the  biography  of  the  men  engaged  in  the 
colonial  movement  as  with  the  history  of  the 
movement.  The  same  man  might  be  considered 
a  rebel  by  one  party  and  a  Patriot  by  the  other  ; 
an  impostor  by  one  party  and  a  hero  by  the 
other  ;  a  convict  under  the  crown  might  be  a 
martyr  to  liberty.  Let  me  give  a  single  ex- 
ample. 

The  evidences  written  from  the  political  point 
of  view  of  the  Court  party  are  especially  severe 
on  Captain  John  Radcliffe,  but  it  is  now  known 


OF  THE  MANAGERS  241 

that  he  was  chosen  to  command  the  Discovery 
in  the  first  fleet  sent  to  the  colony  hy  the  com- 
pany under  the  crown,  and  hrou<rht  that  cockh- 
shell  safely  across  the  Atlantic  with  planters  and 
supplies  to  Virginia  in  1606-1G07  ;  that  he  was 
appointed  under  James  I.  to  his  council  in  Vir- 
ginia ;  that  as  president  of  that  council  he  gov- 
erned the  colony  from  Septemher,  lOOT,  to  Sep- 
tember, 1608,  under  the  form  of  government 
designed  for  the  plantations  by  James  I.,  saw 
its  defects,  was  man  enough  to  protest  against 
them,  and  was  instrumental  in  obtaining  the  new 
charter  under  which  "  the  popular  course "  of 
government  was  inaugurated ;  that  he  was 
selected  to  command  the  vice-admiral  ship  in  the 
first  fleet  sent  under  the  body  politic  in  1609, 
and  brought  that  ship  over  the  Atlantic  through 
the  great  tempest  to  Virginia  with  planters  and 
supplies  ;  that  Captain  George  Percy  gave  him 
credit  for  the  part  taken  by  him  in  suppressing 
the  effort  of  Captain  John  Smith  to  set  up  "  A 
Soveraigne  Rule  "  in  Virginia,  and  that  by  the 
treachery  of  Powhatan  his  life  was  taken  while 
he  was  actively  engaged  in  carrying  forward  the 
colonial  enterprise  in  Virginia.  He  gave  his 
own  blood  and  about  $1000  (present  value)  of 
his  own  treasure  toward  securing  this  country 
for  us,  and  is  one  of  the  martyrs  of  our  genesis. 
From  the  patriotic  view  point  he  deserves  much 
more  consideration  from  the  historians  of  this 


242  OF  THE  MANAGERS 

Republic  than  he  would  have  done  if  he  had 
brought  nothing  to  Virginia,  had  landed  here 
himseK  restrained  as  a  prisoner,  had  been  sent 
back  to  Eng'land  to  answer  for  some  misdemean- 
ors,  had  not  returned  to  Virginia,  had  not  given 
his  life  to  the  great  cause,  but  had  devoted  him- 
self to  writing  "  histories  "  lauding  himself,  criti- 
cising our  patriotic  founders,  conforming  with 
the  purposes  of  the  crown,  and  opposing  the 
principles  on  which  our  country  was  founded. 
And  if  the  original  history  of  the  enterprise  had 
been  written  from  the  view  point  of  the  Patriot 
party,  he  would  have  been  lauded  therein  as  one 
of  the  founders  of  Virginia  —  as  a  Virginian 
hero  —  instead  of  being  abused,  as  has  been  done 
in  our  histories  based  on  the  evidences  of  the 
Court  party. 

Nothing  is  of  greater  historic  importance  than 
a  proper  political  classification  and  analysis  of 
our  colonial  evidences.  In  order  to  secure  colo- 
nies without  using  the  royal  revenues,  the  kings 
of  England  granted  charters  to  corporations  and 
bodies  politic  conveying  to  them  not  only  com- 
mercial but  political  privileges.  In  order  to 
secure  these  charter  rights,  these  bodies  settled 
their  grants  at  the  expense  of  their  own  blood  and 
treasure,  unaided  by  the  crown.  After  the  colo- 
nies were  thus  secured,  the  crown  annulled  their 
charters  and  attempted  to  suppress  their  history. 
The  dominions  settled  by  them  on  popular  rights 


OF  THE  MANAGERS  oi3 

were  domineered  over  by,  and  tli«'  liistoil»-s  dC 
their  acts  were  published  under  the  auspices  of, 
royal  officials.  But  the  citizens  ol"  the  country 
knew  the  great  value  to  them  of  the  political 
principles  which  the  Court  party  (the  crown)  was 
trying-  to  take  from  them,  and  which  they  had 
settled  in  this  country  to  secure.  Therelore 
these  popular  charter  rights  remained  a  constant 
ground  of  contention  from  IGIO  to  177G,  and 
there  were  always  two  parties  in  the  colony  con- 
tending over  these  rights  —  a  popular  elenu'iit 
and  a  Royalist  or  Tory  element.  In  Virginia 
the  evidences  were  largely  under  the  control  of 
the  crown  officials,  the  leaders  of  the  Royal  party, 
and  only  traces  of  evidences  favorable  to  the 
Patriot  party  have  escaped  destruction  in  the 
public  record  offices  in  England  and  in  Virginia. 
This  is  especially  true  of  the  foundation  j)erio(l, 
160G-1625,  and  of  such  periods  as  1GI50-1(J.*J."*, 
1640-1660,  1674-1677,  etc. ;  but  probably  of 
no  period  while  Virginia  was  under  the  crown 
has  there  been  preserved  sufficient  authentic  and 
reliable  evidence  upon  which  to  base  com])lcte 
and  absolutely  accurate  historical  narrative  of 
events.  And  probably  the  greater  part  of  lid- 
colonial  history  has  been  based  on  the  ex  parte 
evidences  for  the  crown.  After  giving  due  con- 
sideration to  the  evidences  that  remain  and  t(» 
the  circumstances  which  inspired  them  and  con- 
trolled them,  I  feel  sure  that  the  popular  clement 


244  OF  THE  MANAGERS 

was  always  very  strong  in  Virginia.  And  evi- 
dences preserved  by  the  crown  to  the  contrary 
notwithstanding,  the  crown  was  always  well 
aware  of  this  fact,  as  the  constant  effort  of  royal 
officials  to  obliterate  evidences  and  of  royal 
writers  to  produce  the  contrary  impression  amply 
proves.  I  feel  sure  that  the  emigrants  to  Vir- 
ginia came  over  as  much  for  the  sake  of  more 
freedom  of  thought  and  action  as  for  anything 
else  ;  and  that  this  was  not  only  true  in  business 
and  politics,  but  also  in  religion.  The  broad- 
minded  member  of  the  Church  of  England 
wished  to  exercise  a  freedom  of  thougfht  and  of 
action,  as  much  so  as  the  Non-conformists  of  Eng- 
land, the  Huguenots  of  France,  the  Presbyte- 
rians of  the  north  of  Ireland,  and  the  Episco- 
palians of  Scotland.  Many  from  each  of  these 
classes  certainly  came  to  Virginia.  Whether 
they  came  to  escape  the  rule  of  an  absolute  mon- 
archy when  that  power  was  ruling  Great  Britain, 
or  to  escape  the  Roundheads  of  1646-1659,  or 
for  whatever  reason  they  came,  a  large  majority 
of  all  became  advocates  of  the  popular  political 
charter  rights  upon  which  the  colony  was  founded, 
rather  than  of  the  royal  rule  which  they  had 
left  behind  them  in  the  Old  World.  And  when 
the  time  that  tried  men's  souls  came,  Patriots 
were  not  found  wanting  in  Virginia. 


OF  THE  MOTIVE  — VIS   VIT.E  i.'l5 


CHAPTER  VI 

VIS     VIT^ THE     MOTIVE     OF     THE     MOVEMENT 

AS  IT  WAS  REPRESENTED  IN  THE  EVIDENCES 
FROM  THE  VIEW  POINT  OF  THE  COURT  AND 
PATRIOT    PARTIES 

Of  all  things  James  I.  was  evidently  most 
determined  to  efface  every  trace  of  the  vital 
force  which  really  sustained  this  movement  from 
the  first,  through  almost  insurmountable  dilli- 
culties. 

The  idea  conveyed  by  the  crown  history  is  that 
the  manag'ers  of  the  business  in  sendiu":  out  the 
colony  were  inspired  by  an  inordinate  desire  for 
gain  ;  but  as  usual  with  the  crown  evidences  this 
was  as  opposite  to  the  truth  as  the  Court  party 
was  opposed  to  the  purposes  of  the  Patriots.  In 
accordance  with  the  universal  harmony  of  things, 
everything  in  nature  must  be  produced  by  a  spe- 
cial germ, — a  prime  principle  sustaining  vital- 
ity, —  and  it  was  the  inspiring  desire  to  escape 
tyranny  and  to  find  freedom,  which  gave  the 
touch  of  life  to  the  English-American  colonies, 
and  which  continues  to  sustain  the  vitality  of 
this  nation. 

Prior  to  1G09  the  idea  had  been,  as  expressed 
by  Lane  to  Raleigh,  that  "the  discovery  of  a 
gold  mine  by  the  goodness  of  God,  or  a  passage 


246  OF  THE  MOTIVE  — VIS  VITiE 

to  the  South  Sea,  or  some  way  to  it,  and  nothing 
else,  can  bring  America  in  request  to  be  in- 
habited by  our  Nation."  After  repeated  trials 
no  route  to  the  South  Sea  was  found,  and  the 
gold  found  by  the  Spaniards  in  South  America 
was  not  found  by  the  English  in  North  America  ; 
but  it  so  happened  that  "  the  free  air  "  of  Vir- 
ginia, acting  as  an  inspiration  on  the  minds  of 
some  of  the  first  planters,  was  instrumental  in 
producing  in  the  enlarged  minds  of  the  men  of 
genius  who  were  then  adopting  the  principles  of 
liberty  the  determination  to  put  those  poHtical 
principles  in  practice  in  America,  and  it  was  this 
"  projected  end,"  more  than  anything  else,  which 
brought  this  country  in  request  to  be  inhabited 
by  our  nation. 

It  was  not  for  the  sake  of  gain,  but  for  the 
sake  of  the  special  privileges,  immunities,  and  lib- 
eral  charter  rights  that  our  primary  body  politic 
undertook  to  settle  this  country  at  the  expense 
of  their  own  blood  and  treasure.  Human  beings 
cannot  meet  and  overcome  constant,  long  contin- 
ued expense  and  disaster  without  any  recompense 
unless  they  are  sustained  by  a  "  Divine  Agency, 
working  through  Special  Providence."  The  love 
of  liberty  is  a  divine  principle  placed  in  every 
human  heart  by  God,  and  it  was  the  inspired 
spirit  of  liberty  which  enabled  the  patriotic  man- 
agers of  the  movement  to  overcome  the  results 
of  past  misgovernment  and  disappointment  and 


OF  THE   MOTIVE  — VIS   VIT/E  'J17 

to  continue  their  enterprise  in  the  face  of  the 
bitter  opposition  of  Spain  and  the  iiicrea.sii)f^ 
unfriendliness  of  the  Court  party;  meeting  as 
well  as  human  beings  could  do  tiie  dangers  and 
difficulties,  known  and  unknown,  of  the  new 
lands  and  seas,  —  "lightning  and  tempest,  plague, 
pestilence,  and  famine,  battle  and  murder  and 
sudden  death  ; "  going  to  great  expense  without 
any  reward,  with  a  constant  resolution,  until,  "  by 
the  mercy  of  God,"  they  succeeded  in  laying  the 
foundation  for  a  new  nation  in  the  new  world 
on  popular  political  principles  for  the  betterment 
of  their  posterity  and  for  the  advancement  of 
manldnd. 

As  I  have  shown  in  my  previous  books,  the 
chief  avowed  objects  of  the  Virginia  Corporation 
prior  to  1618  had  been  their  intention  of  spread- 
ing the  commonwealth,  the  commerce,  and  the 
Church  of  England ;  but  it  is  now  certain  that 
the  political  purpose,  although  not  avowed,  had 
really  been  the  inspiration,  the  soul,  of  the  move- 
ment since  1609;  and  that  the  patriotic  members 
of  the  body  politic  —  both  planters  and  adven- 
turers—  had  constantly  looked  forward  to  the 
institution  of  the  proposed  popular  political  ]irin- 
ciples. 

And  throughout  the  whole  movement  the  hand 
of  a  divine  agency  can  be  seen  working  throu;;h 
special  providences.  It  was  providential  that 
the  plantations  of  1607,  in  North  and   in  South 


248  OF  THE  MOTIVE  — VIS  VIT^ 

Virginia,  failed  under  the  political  control  of 
James  I.  It  was  providential  that  the  special 
charters  to  the  original  of  the  body  politic  of  this 
nation  were  granted.  It  was  providential  that 
the  plan  of  government  designed  for  the  planta- 
tions in  North  and  South  Virginia  by  James  I. 
was  altered.  It  was  providential  that  James  I. 
died  when  he  did,  and  that  Charles  I.  was  under 
peculiar  personal  obligations  to  some  of  the  Pa- 
triots in  the  Virginia  corporation.  It  was  pro- 
vidential that  the  issue  between  the  Crown  and 
the  Commons  was  a  protection  to  the  popular 
purposes  of  the  corporation  from  1609  to  1659, 
thus  enabling  the  growing  tree  of  liberty  to  be- 
come sufficiently  deep-rooted  in»  America  to  with- 
stand successfully  the  opposition  of  the  crown 
as  it  increased  after  1660.  In  brief,  it  was  pro- 
vidential that  the  popular  course  of  government 
was  instituted  in  both  North  and  South  Virginia, 
and  that  the  actual  foundation  of  this  country 
was  laid  under  the  political  management  of  men 
inspired  with  liberal  ideas  of  government ;  for 
the  prosecution  of  the  plantations  to  the  political 
purposes  which  were  especially  condemned  by 
James  I.,  the  Court  party,  and  the  historians  li- 
censed under  the  crown  was  really  the  inspiration, 
—  vis  vitce,  —  the  soul  of  the  movement,  under 
which  our  country  was  secured  for  us,  and  made 
the  seat  of  liberty,  enlightenment,  and  good 
government  in  the  New  World.     To  translate 


CONCLUSION  049 

the  figurate  language  of  the  first  great  seal  of 
the  State  of  Virginia,  it  was  '  In  this  way  that 
God  made  us  Free!  Thus  Virtue  overcame 
Tyranny ! ' 

CHAPTER  VII 

CONCLUSION A     SUMMARY     OF      THE     CASE     OH 

CONTROVERSY 

The  question  as  to  whether  Pocahontas  rescued 
Captain  John  Smith  from  the  cluhs  of  the  sav- 
ages of  King  Powhatan  is  not  of  so  great  his- 
toric importance,  and  I  have  never  so  considered 
it.  The  important  question  has  been  whetlier 
the  true  history  of  our  beginning  as  a  nation 
could  be  rescued  from  the  acts  of  the  agents 
of  King  James  I.  Notwithstanding  all  dillicul- 
ties,  the  obstacles  formerly  in  the  way  have  been 
sufficiently  removed  to  enable  us  to  have  at  least 
a  fair  idea  of  the  importance  of  the  case. 

The  Patriot  party  managed  the  business  and 
laid  the  foundation  upon  which  this  great  nation 
has  been  erected.  The  Court  party  controlled 
the  evidences  and  laid  the  foundation  upon 
"which  the  history  of  this  movement  has  been 
written.  The  value  of  the  services  of  those  two 
great  parties  in  their  respective  fields  must  be 
judged  by  the  results  which  have  followed  the 
acceptation   of   their   respective  acts ;   for  *'  by 


250  CONCLUSION 

their  fruits  ye  shall  know  them,"  and  *  the  tree 
which  has  not  brought  forth  good  fruit  shall  be 
hewn  down  and  cast  into  the  fire.' 

The  Patriot  party,  in  carrying  forward  their 
purpose  to  plant  in  America  "  a  more  free  "  or 
"  popular  course  of  government,"  as  a  refuge 
from  the  absolute  power  and  tyranny  then  aimed 
at  by  king  and  court,  had  to  contend  against  the 
constant  opposition  of  the  Court  party,  and  un- 
fortunately for  the  truth  of  history  they  had  no 
public  control  over  the  evidences.  The  press  was 
not  free  to  them ;  they  could  only  preserve  copies 
of  their  own  records  by  stealth  j  they  not  only 
did  not  publish  the  history  of  their  great  move- 
ment, but  evidently  would  not  have  been  per- 
mitted to  do  so  ;  for  all  of  their  records  upon  which 
an  authentic  history  could  have  been  based  were 
taken  from  them  by  the  opponent  Court  party, 
with  the  manifest  purpose  of  making  it  impossi- 
ble for  the  truth  regarding  their  popular  political 
enterprise  ever  to  be  known. 

The  first  "  histories  "  of  this  enterprise  were 
published  under  the  auspices  of  the  Court  party, 
composed  of  those  who  were  then  upholding 
"  the  kingly  power,"  and  opposing  the  political 
principles  which  were  inspiring  the  movement. 
This  party  was  armed  with  royal  authority  over 
persons  and  papers ;  it  possessed  an  absolute 
control  over  all  evidences,  and  used  this  control 
to  its  own  partisan  purposes.     It  had  the  power 


CONCLUSION  251 

"  to  take  and  to  keep  "  all  of  the  records  of  the 
first  "  body  politic  "  of  our  country,  and  exer- 
cised it.  It  had  the  power  to  pultlish  to  tlie 
world  an  incomplete,  incorrect,  ex  j^cirte  account 
purporting  to  be  the  history  of  the  great  political 
reform  movement  to  which  the  crown  was  bit- 
terly opposed,  and  made  use  of  it ;  and  it  had  the 
power  to  require  an  acceptation  of  crown  evi- 
dences as  reliable  authority,  and  virtually  did  so. 

We  have  been  living  for  more  than  a  century 
under  the  fully  developed  idea  of  the  Patriot 
party  for  a  popular  course  of  government  in 
America,  which  the  Court  party  wished  to  destroy 
in  chrysalis,  and  we  know  that  it  is  good  fruit. 
We  now  know  that  if  a  correct  contemporary  his- 
tory of  the  acts  and  objects  of  the  Patriot  party, 
written  by  a  capable  historian  in  sympathy  with 
the  grand  purposes  of  their  great  movement,  had 
been  available  from  the  beginning,  it  would  have 
inspired  veneration  for  our  patriotic  founders, 
appreciation  for  their  noble  sacrifices,  admiration 
for  their  political  purposes,  and  a  proper  desire 
to  perpetuate  their  memories.  And  we  now  also 
know  that  such  a  history  would  not  have  been 
licensed  under  the  crown  in  1024,  because  these 
were  the  very  sentiments  which  the  Court  party 
wished  to  obliterate  forever,  and  which  the  his- 
tory licensed  under  the  crown  did  obliterate. 

Historians  have  continued  to  accept  a  largo 
portion  of  the  licensed  history  ;  have  written  our 


252  CONCLUSION 

earliest  history  largely  on  crown  evidences,  with- 
out regard  for  the  managers  of  the  business,  or 
for  the  fact  that  their  evidences  were  wanting  ; 
and  so  entirely  vrithout  regard  for  the  political 
conditions  obtaining  under  the  crown  that  they 
have  overlooked  the  royal  idea  that  the  honors 
for  the  services  of  the  agents  or  representatives 
of  a  king  really  belonged  to  the  king  himself ; 
and  therefore  "  history "  has  conveyed  even  a 
more  belittling  idea  than  the  Court  party  in- 
tended it  to  convey.  The  founding  of  this  great 
country,  instead  of  being  regarded  as  the  lasting 
monument  to  King  James  I.,  as  the  Court  party 
contended,  and  as  the  Rev.  Samuel  Purchas 
plainly  regarded  it  in  his  works,  has  come  to  be 
considered  as  a  lasting  monument  to  John  Smith 
in  his  personal  instead  of  in  his  official  capacity. 
Personally  he  was  a  man  of  straw,  of  no  author- 
ity, means,  or  influence ;  while  officially  he  was 
a  representative  of  James  I.  (the  crown),  from 
whom  he  derived  his  authority  both  as  a  coun- 
cilor in  Virginia  and  as  a  historian  in  England, 
and  to  whom  (James  I.),  in  the  view  of  the  cen- 
sors of  the  press,  the  honors  for  his  services 
really  belonged,  and  as  they  thought  were  really 
given.  And,  therefore,  if  the  "  history  "  is  true 
they  should  be  so  given. 

The  history  licensed  by  the  crown  failed  to 
create  in  the  colony  a  desire  to  return  to  the 
form  of  government  designed  for  the  plantations 


CONCLUSION  or^3 

by  James  I.  as  administered  by  the  historian, 
and  it  failed  to  destroy  the  faith  in  ''  tlie  popu- 
lar course  of  government"  to  which  the  histo- 
rian was  opposed ;  but  in  many  respects  it  has 
done  about  all  the  harm  that  its  sponsors  wished 
it  to  do.  Instead  of  being  a  fair  account  of  tlie 
beginning  of  the  most  important  pohtical  reform 
movement  of  modern  times,  it  is  a  mere  eulogy 
of  the  "  historian,"  a  traduction  of  the  original  of 
the  body  politic  of  this  nation,  and  a  stigma  ujion 
the  popular  political  principles  which  inspired 
them.  It  has  really  reversed  the  true  view  of  our 
national  origin ;  given  the  chief  honors  to  the 
chief  agent  in  perpetrating  the  historic  wrong  ; 
censured  those  who  deserved  praise,  robbed  our 
patriotic  founders  of  the  honors  due  them,  and 
deprived  our  origin  of  its  inspiring  features. 
Instead  of  fostering  worthy  sentiments  regard- 
ing our  patriotic  founders  and  national  founda- 
tion as  a  true  patriotic  history  would  have  done, 
it  has  caused  an  entire  misunderstanding  of  tlie 
beginning  of  the  great  reform  political  movement, 
and  taken  from  the  splendid  fabric  of  our  insti- 
tutions the  part  which  was  due  to  the  patriotism, 
the  valor,  and  the  genius  of  the  first  designers 
of  the  popular  course  of  government  for  this 
nation. 

I  doubt  if  any  citizen  of  this  Republic  has 
ever  made  a  pilgrimage  into  "  the  free  land  of 
Kent,"  to  the  grave  of  Sir  Edwin  Sandys,  who 


254  CONCLUSION 

drafted  the  first  idea  of  our  constitution,  and 
done  homage  there.  I  doubt  if  many  have 
visited  the  old  meeting  places  in  London  of  the 
Virginian  (American)  courts,  "  the  Seminary  of 
Sedition "  of  the  Court  party,  and  the  cradle 
of  American  freedom,  wherein  our  first  polit- 
ical charter  rights  were  nurtured.  And  in 
America,  the  anniversary  of  the  signing  and  of 
the  landing  in  South  Virginia  of  the  first  char- 
ter drafted  by  the  primary  designers  of  a  liberal 
government  for  this  nation  has  never  been  cele- 
brated. The  historic  ceremony  in  the  church  at 
Jamestown,  on  June  2  (n.  s.),  1610,  has  never 
been  enshrined  in  song  or  story,  or  illustrated 
in  picture.  The  inauguration  of  our  national 
political  idea  on  American  soil  has  never  been 
honored.  "  Not  one  stone  has  been  set  upon 
another, "  so  to  speak,  to  mark  the  planting  of 
the  seed  of  a  popular  course  of  government  in 
this  country. 

The  hcensed  history  preserved  the  portraits  — 
real  or  imaginary  —  of  Queen  Elizabeth,  King 
James,  Prince  Charles ;  of  the  Kings  of  Paspa- 
hegh,  Pamaunkees,  and  Powhatans ;  of  the  Prin- 
cess Pocahontas ;  of  the  Duchess  of  Richmond 
and  Lenox  (who  patronized  the  book  and  wished 
to  marry  the  king  whose  political  ideas  the  book 
supported) ;  and  of  Captain  John  Smith  (on  sev- 
eral occasions),  who  represented  the  king  in  Vir- 
ginia, and  wrote  or  compiled  the  book.     But  the 


CONCLUSION  ij.Vi 

book  does  not  preserve  the  picture  of  a  sinjrlo 
one  of  our  patriotic  founders,  who  at  the  expense 
of  their  own  blood  and  treasure  instituted  the 
popular  course  of  government  in  this  country. 

The  methods  of  the  crown  for  obliterating 
everything  pertaining  to  this  popular  niovenu-nt 
took  such  complete  effect  that  there  has  not 
been  preserved  an  authentic  relic  of  a  single 
member  of  the  King's  Council  in  Virginui 
(1607-1609)  who  protested  against  the  king's 
form  of  government  for  Virginia,  or  of  a  single 
member  of  the  first  General  Assembly  ever  con- 
vened in  America.  Not  even  the  site  of  tiie 
grave  of  a  single  one  of  them  is  known.  Not 
even  a  chair  has  been  preserved  from  The  De- 
liverance, which  brought  our  original  constitu- 
tional charter  to  our  shores,  or,  with  the  exce])- 
tion  of  The  Mayflower,  from  an  hundred  other 
ships  sent  out  under  the  original  body  })olitic. 
Absolutely  nothing  has  been  done  to  show  to 
the  Old  World  that  the  people  of  this  new  Re- 
public appreciate  the  services  of  the  patriotic 
managers  of  the  business  —  in  England  and  in 
Virginia  —  on  whom  the  enterprise  depended 
for  so  long.  Nothing  has  been  done  in  acknow- 
ledgment of  their  divine  inspiration,  their  self- 
sacrifices,  their  great  expenditures,  their  deter- 
mination in  the  face  of  the  opposition  of  Spain, 
their  firmness  in  the  controversies  with  the  king, 
council,    commissioners,    courts,    and    critics   in 


256  CONCLUSION 

England ;  or  of  their  dauntless  courage  in  meet- 
ing all  the  dangers  and  difficulties  —  known  or 
unforeseen  —  in  England,  in  Europe,  on  the 
ocean,  and  in  Virginia,  with  constant  resolution, 
until,  "  by  the  mercies  of  God,"  they  succeeded 
in  their  "  projected  ends."  No  memorial  has 
ever  been  erected  in  this  Republic — not  even 
in  the  original  boundary  of  the  first  Repubhc 
in  America  between  34°  and  40°  north  latitude, 
extending  from  ocean  to  ocean,  through  the 
very  centre  of  the  present  United  States  —  to 
those  who,  at  the  expense  of  their  own  blood 
and  treasure,  first  planted  the  seed  of  a  more 
free  government  in  this  country,  which  germi- 
nated in  "  our  sacred  soil,"  and  grew  strong  in 
our  "  free  air  "  from  a  tender  plant  to  the  great 
tree  which  still  flourishes,  — 

"  And  like  a  mountain  cedar  spreads  its  branches 
To  all  the  plaines  about  it  ! " 

Such  is  the  evil  effect  of  royal  politics  on  our 
patriotic  history ;  such  the  fruit  brought  forth 
by  the  continued  acceptance  in  the  Republic  of 
the  historic  wrongs  done  our  founders  in  the 
history  licensed  by  the  crown.  And  there  can 
be  but  little  doubt  that  if  James  I.  had  suc- 
ceeded in  fastening  the  form  of  government 
designed  by  him  for  the  colonies  as  securely  on 
this  country,  the  result  would  have  been  as  dis- 
astrous to  our  political  institutions  as  the  accep- 
tation of  the  account  hcensed  by  his  censors  has 


CONCLUSION  0-7 

been  to  the  history  of  the  institution  of  the  pf>- 
litical  principles  on  which  the  nation  was  founded. 
And  the  evil  effect  of  royal  politics  on  the  his- 
tory of  our  founders  of  1G0G-1(>24,  when  plant- 
ing the  seed,  enables  us  to  see  the  importance  of 
having  history  accurately  written  from  the  cor- 
rect political  point  of  view,  and  what  would  have 
been  the  historic  fate  of  our  forefathers  of  the 
Revolution  of  1774-1783,  when  gathering  the 
fruits,  if  they  had  failed  to  secure  our  chart rr 
rights,  and  if  our  history  of  the  culmin.ition  of 
the  grand  movement  had  remained  under  the 
absolute  control  of  the  advocates  of  the  old 
monarchical  forms  of  government. 

The  work  of  the  Court  party  has  not  broui^ht 
forth  good  fruit,  and  "  it  should  be  hewn  down 
and  cast  into  the  fire."  The  High  Commission 
under  James  I.  which  licensed  the  publication  of 
the  book  compiled  by  or  in  the  name  of  Cap- 
tain John  Smith,  pretending  to  be  our  earliest 
history,  would  have  cast  a  true  history  of  this 
popular  movement  "  into  the  fire."  It  was  really 
practically  obliterated  for  generations.  The  loyal 
point  of  view  of  our  earliest  history  was  reversed 
in  1776,  when  w^e  declared  our  independence 
from  the  crown  of  Great  Britain,  and  it  is  high 
time  for  that  history  to  be  rescued  from  the  acts 
of  the  agents  of  King  James  I.  "Beware  of 
false  prophets,  which  come  to  you  in  sheei)'s 
clothing,  but  inwardly  are  ravening  wolves." 


258  CONCLUSION 

The  first  English  colony  in  the  present  United 
States  —  our  political  mother  —  was  not  founded 
by  a  king,  nor  by  an  agent  of  a  king,  nor  on 
the  monarchical  principles  of  government  advo- 
cated by  a  king,  as  the  royal  commissioners  and 
licensed  historians  asserted :  it  was  founded  by 
patriotic  statesmen,  politicians,  and  planters  on 
the  liberal  political  principles  advocated  by  them, 
a  fact  which  James  I.  wished  to  obliterate  for- 
ever. Under  conditions  which  I  have  explained, 
the  first  historian  —  a  paper  tiger  —  deprived 
the  Patriots  of  the  honors  due  them  in  history, 
and  subsequent  historians  have  been  doing  the 
same  thing  ever  since ;  but  justice  and  patriot- 
ism, political  principles  and  direct  evidences, 
reason  and  circumstantial  evidences  are  now  all 
combined  in  requiring  our  national  history  to 
rest  on  its  true  political  basis. 

In  conclusion,  and  to  make  the  case  clearer, 
let  us  review  some  of  its  features.  It  will  have 
been  seen  that  in  order  to  understand  our  earliest 
history  it  is  necessary  to  understand  the  political 
conditions  then  obtaining  and  the  authority  ex- 
ercised by  those  directly  interested  in  upholding 
the  different  political  views  on  the  colonial  move- 
ment. Historians,  while  upholding  the  history 
licensed  under  the  crown,  have  been  disposed  to 
undervalue  the  contemporary  influence  of  the 
king  who  controlled  the  press.  The  high  esti- 
mation in  which  James  I.  was  held  by  the  Court 


CONCLUSION  259 

party  will  be  found,  not  only  in  Piirchas,  ])iit 
also  in  the  preface  of  James  Mont^i^u,  bishop 
of  Winchester,  to  the  IGIG  edition  of  tlie  kin<;'s 
works;  in  the  funeral  sermon,  on  '•  Great  IJrit- 
ain's  Solomon,"  preached  by  Lord  Keeper  Jolin 
Williams  in  Westminster  Abbey  in  1G25  ;  and  in 
many  other  pubHcations,  as  well  as  in  crown  evi- 
dences still  in  manuscript.  In  comparing  James 
I.  to  Solomon,  it  seems  evident  that  Williams 
thought  James  I.  the  greater  man.  Like  Purchas 
and  other  members  of  the  Court  party,  he  gave 
to  the  king  the  credit  for  having  spread  the 
religion,  the  commerce,  and  the  colonies  of  Eng- 
land in  Asia,  Africa,  and  America.  And  he  did 
not  consider  it  necessary  to  mention  the  name  of 
a  single  one  of  the  king's  agents  in  these  pre- 
mises, or  of  those  who  had  actually  done  the 
work  at  their  own  expense. 

The  meanings  given  to  such  words  as  '  King,' 
*  Parliament,'  '  Prerogative,'  etc.,  by  the  Court 
party  at  that  time  will  be  found  in  "  The  Liter- 
preter,"  a  book  containing  "the  signification  of 
words  "  (a  law  dictionary),  published  by  Dr.  John 
Cowell  in  1607,  or  early  in  1G08.  This  book 
asserted  that  the  English  government  was  an 
absolute  monarchy,  and  gave  alarm  to  the  mem- 
bers of  the  Patriot  party,  '  who  were  oi)posed  to 
the  absolute  monarchy  then  aimed  at  by  the 
king  and  the  Court  party.'  It  was  in  the  winter 
of  1608-1609  that  this  party  petitioned  for  t.ur 


260  CONCLUSION 

charter  of  1609.  When  Parliament  next  met,  in 
February,  1610,  the  Commons  protested  against 
Cowell's  book,  and  although  James  I.  finally 
proclaimed  against  it,  and  had  it  burnt  by  the 
common  hangman,  this  was  evidently  diplomacy 
on  his  part,  as  he  really  believed  in  the  mon- 
archical principles  of  the  book.  When  he  ad- 
dressed the  judges  in  the  Court  of  Star  Chamber 
in  the  summer  of  1616,  he  told  them  that  '  on 
coming  into  England  a  stranger,  he  had  resolved 
"with  Pythagoras  to  keep  silence  seven  years  and 
acquaint  himself  with  the  laws  of  the  kingdom ; 
and  that  he  had  delayed  another  seven  years 
waiting  for  the  proper  time ;  but  having  served 
this  double  apprenticeship,  he  then  considered 
himself  a  fit  judge  in  the  premises,'  —  and  he 
proceeded  to  deliver  a  long  discourse  on  his  ideas 
of  government,  in  which  he  impugned  the  Com- 
mon Law  of  England  about  as  much  as  Cowell 
had  done,  asserting  that  ^  his  own  prerogative 
was  next  in  place  to  the  deity,'  etc.  It  was 
about  this  time  —  certainly  as  early  as  November, 
1616  —  that  he  began  to  interfere  with  the  gov- 
ernment which  the  Virginia  Corporation  proposed 
to  institute  in  this  country,  and  he  continued  to 
do  so  as  long  as  he  lived.  And  it  came  to  pass 
that  the  evidences  disseminated  under  his  rule 
have  continued  to  be  accepted  as  conveying  a 
true  account  of  the  origin  of  this  nation.  There 
is  no  absolute  control  over  histories  now  as  was 


CONCLUSION  oci 

the  case  while  the  colony  WcOs  under  the  crown, 
and  books  disseminatinjr  tlie  ideas  of  the  Court 
party  cannot  be  burnt,  nor  their  authors  impris- 
oned ;  but  there  is  no  longer  any  reason  why  our 
national  foundation,  our  founders,  their  acts  or 
motives,  should  be  presented  to  our  people  in  (jur 
histories  as  they  were  pictured  by  tlie  opponents 
of  the  political  principles  on  which  our  country 
was  founded.  Thanks  to  those  principles  our 
historians  are  now  free  to  correct  tlie  false  ideas 
of  the  inauguration  of  those  principles  in  this 
country  which  have  been  derived  from  royal  his- 
torians. Thanks  to  those  principles  our  press 
is  not  now  obUged  to  publish  histories  of  our 
foundation  as  licensed  or  decreed  by  any  party  in 
opposition  to  those  principles.  Thanks  to  those 
principles  our  body  politic  (our  people)  is  now 
free  and  independent;  our  persons  and  papers 
are  no  longer  under  the  absolute  control  of  tlie 
agents  of  an  absolute  power.  And  when  the 
patriotic  politicians,  statesmen,  and  peo})le  who 
are  now  upholding  those  principles  in  this  fully 
developed  Republic  understand  the  importance 
of  the  bejjinnino;  of  the  movement  for  settling  a 
popular  course  of  government  in  America,  they 
will  erect  at  some  proper  place  a  suitable  monu- 
ment as  a  national  memorial  to  those  Patriots 
who  rescued  the  first  colony  from  *  His  Majesty's 
most  Princely  government  for  the  direction  of 
the  affairs  of  the  plantation  by  thirteen  couucel- 


262  CONCLUSION 

lors  in  Virginia,  and  as  many  in  England,  all 
nominated  by  His  Majesty/  —  which  was  the 
real  "  misgovernment "  in  the  opinion  of  the 
Patriots,  —  and  at  the  expense  of  their  own  blood 
and  treasure,  regardless  of  the  opposition  of  his 
majesty  and  his  agents,  first  deposited  in  the 
womb  of  the  Qveat  North  American  wilderness 
the  germ  of  the  vital  principle  which  has  sus- 
tained this  nation  since  its  birth  —  "  Vox 
populij  vox  Dei!'^ 


INDEX 


INDEX 


Additional  information  regarding  most  of  the  persons  mentioned  will 
be  found  in  "  The  Genesis  of  the  United  States  "  and  "  The  First  Itepubllc 
in  America." 


Abbot,  George,  Archbishop  of 
Canterbury,  83,  85,  197;  Maurice, 
32,  19G,  222. 

Abdy,  Anthony,  196,  222. 

Accomak,  120. 

Acts  of  General  Assembly.  See  Gen- 
eral Assembly. 

Act  of  Parliament,  36-30,  49-52,  93. 
See  Parliament. 

Adams,  John,  144;  Henry,  171. 

Adventurers  of  the  purse  and  of  the 
person,  222-227.  See  Virginia  Cor- 
poration and  Body  Politic. 

Alabama,  207. 

Albany  (N.  Y.),  169. 

Albemarle  Co.,  Va.,  159, 160. 

Aklersgate,  28. 

America,  North,  l,  6-12,  14,  15,  22, 
24,  25,  28,  29,  37,  53,  55,  60,  etc. ; 
South,  55,  etc. 

American  Antiquarian  Society,  169, 
170 ;  colonization,  183 ;  continent, 
216;  freedom,  254;  government, 
209,  220 ;  liberty,  146,  147,  216  ; 
.Magna  Charta,  29 ;  movement,  10, 
14;  soil,  17,  254;  talisman,  16,  20, 
66 ;  wilderness,  12,  262. 

Anderson's  "  History  of  the  Colo- 
nial Church,"  166. 

Anglo-Saxon,  39. 

Annapolis,  124. 

Anniversary  (The),  16, 254. 

Aragon,  96. 

Arl)er,  Kdward,  and  his  edition  of 
Smitii's  works,  176, 177. 

Archbishops  of  Canterbury  and 
York,  109. 


Archer,  Gabriel,  9,  76,  77. 

Argali,  Sanmel,  27, 196. 

Ariel,  16. 

Arizona,  207. 

Arkansas,  207. 

Arlington,  Karl  of.    See  Rennett 

Ashton,  John, and  his  Life  of  Smith, 
176. 

Assembly.  See  General  Assem- 
bly. 

Atlantic,  13,  241. 

Auditors,  71,  222,  223. 

Bacon,  Sir  Francis,  9, 11, 22. 

Bacon's  Assembly.  235,  236;  Rebel- 
lion, 120,  137,  139. 

Baltimore,  Lord.  See  Cecil  and 
George  Calvert. 

Baltimore's,  Lord,  patent,  99, 21R. 

Bancroft,  George,  historian,  173; 
liichard.  Archbishop  of  Canter- 
bury, 15. 

Barber,  Gabriel,  70, 97. 

Bargrave,  John,  41, 46,  47, 54. 

"  Baslllkon  Doron,"  9. 

Bateman,  Kobert,  196. 

Bathorl,  Sigisniund,  95. 

Bedford  Co.,  Va.,  158,  ICO. 

Bell,  Kobert,  1;k5. 

Beunet,  or  Bennett,  Henry,  Karl  of 
Arlington,  119;  Bichard,  107,  lOH, 
114, 139. 

Berblock,  William.  4.\  70. 

Berkeley,  Sir  William,  104-lOC.  10», 
116,  lis.  120. 

Bernioolhes.  16. 

Bermuda  or  Bermudas,  20, 21,  37,77, 


266 


INDEX 


79;  Islands  Company,  46, 112.  See 
Somers  Island. 

Beverley,  Kobert,  and  his  history  of 
Virginia,  122, 123, 160, 202. 

Biography,  240-242. 

Birch's  "  Court  and  Times  of  James 
I.,"  166. 

Bland,  Edward,  and  his  "  Discovery 
of  New  Britaine,"  111,139;  Giles, 
139;  John,  Sr.,  70,  139;  John,  Jr., 
139;  Col.  Richard,  138-140,  his 
"  Inquiry,"  etc.,  138,  and  his  li- 
brary, 140, 157. 

Body  Politic,  — the  original.  See 
Virginia  Corporation. 

Bond,  Martin,  196. 

Boston,  170. 

Boundary  rights,  147-150.  See  Char- 
ter rights. 

Brewster,  Edward,  20. 

Briggs,  Henry,  222. 

British  Museum,  166, 168. 

Broadsides,  19, 62. 

Brooke,  Christopher,  32, 34. 

Brown,  Alexander,  an  explanation, 
175,  178-190,  212-215. 

Bryant  and  Gay,  historians,  173. 

Buck,  Kev.  Richard,  17, 18,  20. 

Buckingham,  Duke  of.  See  Vil- 
liers. 

Buckner,  John,  121. 

Burgesses.  See  House  of  Bur- 
gesses. 

Butler,  Nathaniel,  127, 196. 

Byrd,  Col.  William  the  1st,  135-137  ; 
the  2d,  135-139;  the  3d,  138-140; 
their  library,  140. 

Caesar,  Sir  Julius,  master  of  tte 
King's  Rolls  (Records),  196. 

Calendars.    See  State  Papers. 

California,  207. 

Calvert,  Cecil,  2d  Lord  Baltimore, 
98,  99, 149, 150, 163 ;  George,  Secre- 
tary of  State,  1st  Lord  Baltimore, 
196. 

Cambell  (or  Campbell),  James,  196. 

Cambridge  (Mass.),  166, 170. 

Camden  Society  of  England,  169. 

Campbell's,  Charles,  History  of  Vir- 
ginia (1860),  118. 


Canning,  William,  114, 128. 

Canterbury,  15,  83,  85,  99, 109, 197. 

Carew,  George  Lord,  55 ;  his  letters 
to  Roe,  169. 

Carie  (Carey,  Gary),  Sir  Philip, 
196. 

Carleton,  Sir  Dudley,  96, 167. 

Carter's  Mountain,  159. 

Cartwright,  Abraham,  196. 

Cavalier,  107. 

Cavendish,  William,  Lord  (after- 
wards Earl  of  Devonshire),  32, 42, 
44,  46,  114. 

Chalmers,  George,  156. 

Chambers,  George,  35,  222. 

Charles,  Prince,  37,  43,  50,  254; 
King,  I.,  89-103,  89,  91-94,  96,  98,  99, 
101-107,  113,  133,  134,  138,  139,  148, 
155,  162,  211,  213,  248;  his  Procla- 
mation, 91,  92;  II.,  108,  114,  116- 
119,  121,  122,  134,  139,  235. 

Charters,  242,  248 ;  (of  1600),  6-8,  17, 
21,  22,  48,  77,  78,  126,  148,  160,  161, 
205,  206,  208,  209,  216,  232 ;  (of  1609), 
6-13,  16,  17,  21-24,  52-56,  78,  126, 
127,  130-132,  143,  146,  148-150,  161- 
163,  204-216,  218,  220,  230-232; 
(of  1612),  21-24,  52-56,  78,  126,  127, 
130-132,  143,  146,  148,  161,  162,  204, 
205,  207,  209-210,  220,  222,  232; 
(Of  1620,  N.  E.),  101,  210,  212  ; 
(of  1621,  Va.),  35-40,  211 ;  (of  1029, 
Mass.),  45,  143,  207,  211-213;  (of 
leil,  Va.),  97,  98 ;  (of  1640,  Va.), 
103,  104,  107. 

Charter  rights,  liberal,  political,  and 
property,  13,  17,  204-216,  242 ;  ef- 
forts to  protect  by  Act  of  Parlia- 
ment,  35-41,  49,  52 ;  contest  over, 
between  the  Court  and  Patriot 
parties,  27,  32,  35,  36,  38,  40,  42-56. 
59,  67,  85,  89-108,  118-121,  140-150, 
l.'iS,  154,  193,  195,  226,  227,  234,  242- 
244;  secured  by  our  Revolution, 
13,  55,  142-147,  149, 153,  154, 184,  257. 
See  Petitions. 

Chichester,  Arthur  Lord,  55, 196. 

Church  of  England,  182, 244, 247. 

Cities  of  England,  35. 

Civil  War  of  England,  104-108. 

Claiborne,  William,  100, 107, 114. 


INDEX 


'Ml 


Clarendon,  Earl  of.  Soe  Edward 
Hide. 

Clark,  George  Kogers,  149. 

Climate  of  Virginia,  218. 

CoUingwood,  Edward,  G6. 

Colonial  Commission  under  Charles 
I.  (Liberal),  96-99 ;  Laud's,  99. 

Commissions.  See  King's  Commis- 
sions. 

Commons,  House  of,  9,  36-40,  51,  r,o, 
94,  103-105,  117,  138, 140,  202,  248, 
260.    See  Parliament. 

Commons  Journal,  38,  39, 60. 

Commonwealth,  106-108,  ill,  139, 
165,  201. 

♦'Company  of  English  merchants," 
221. 

Congress,  156. 

Constitution,  the  Corporations,  16, 
127.    See,  under  Virginia. 

Constitution,  the  king's,  77, 126. 

Contest  (continued)  between  the 
Court  and  Patriot  parties  over 
charter  rights,  42-49. 

Controversy,  the,  between  the  Court 
and  Patriot  parties  becomes  an 
open  contest  over  the  reform 
movement,  30-35. 

Conway,  Sir  Edward,  Secy,  of  State, 
196. 

Cooke,  John  Esten,  and  his  "Vir- 
ginia," 176. 

Copeland,  Rev.  Patrick,  45. 

Coppinford,  134. 

Corporation.  See  under  Massachu- 
setts, New  England,  Pilgrims,  and 
Virginia. 

Corporations,  97,  99. 

Council.  See  Privy  Council,  and 
under  Virginia. 

Court  party.  See  imder  Parties, 
National. 

Courts.  See  High  Commission  = 
King's  Bench;  Star  Chamber; 
Virginia. 

Coventry.  Thomas,  Lord,  Attorney- 
General,  3C,  54,  99, 196,  211,  226. 

Cowell,  Kev.  Dr.  John,  259,  260. 

Cranfleld,  Lionel,  Earl  of  Middle- 
sex, 50,  66,  89,  90, 195. 

Cranmer,  William,  32,  35, 222. 


(Yomwcll,  Oliver,  lOfi.  107 ;  Hiphanl. 

107. 
Crown  of  KnRland  (Creat  Hrltain). 

45,  4S,  f>it,  llKi,  fto.,  •.-.•7,  'J4H. 

Crown,  the,  annuN  tlu«  VirRlnla 
charters,  62-.V1;  connucut.H  tli« 
evidences,  69-69;  lieoiise't  tli.-  Iilv 
toi-y,  73-86.  See  under  Evlili-nces, 
James  L,  Charles  L,  Charles  II., 
and  George  IIL 

Culpeper,  Tliomus,  Lord,  119. 121. 

Dale,  Sir  Thomas,  114, 238. 

Danvers,  Henry,  Earl  of  Danby,  97 ; 
Sir  John,  .T2-34,  70,71,91,  97,  102, 
103,  111-114,  i;«,  I3'.i,  2--'--':  his 
copies  of  the  Va.  Court  Kecords 
(1619-1624),  71,  72,  91,  133-140,  157. 

Davison,  Christopher,  66. 

Deane,  Charles,  166, 169-171, 174, 175. 

Declarations,  62;  of  1609,  19;  o( 
1610,  166  ;  of  1620,  223-2i'> ;  of  1623, 
44  :  of  1624,  104 ;  of  1042,  104,  105 ; 
of  Independence,  143, 144. 

Delaware  (State),  207. 

De  la  Warr,  Lord    See  West. 

Deliverance,  the,  16, 2.'>5. 

Democracie  of  England,  107. 

Dennis,  Kobert,  107. 

D'Evereux,  Kobert,  2d  Earl  of  K% 
sex,  14, 15. 

Devonshire,  Earl  of.  See  Caven- 
dish, 

Devonshire  [William  Cavendish, 
5th].  Duke  of,  147. 

DIcbncId,  Edward.  197. 

Digges,  Sir  Dudley,  97;  Edward, 
108. 

Discovery,  the,  241. 

"Dispatch,"  The  Richmond,  V.v, 
17.':'. 

District  of  Columbia,  207. 

Doncaster,  Lord.    See  James  Hay. 

Donne,  George,  loi ;  Rev.  Dr.  John. 
101. 

Dorchester,  Viscount  See  D. 
Carleton. 

Dorset,  Earl  of.    Sec  E.  Sackvlllo. 

Doyle,  J.  A.,  and  his  "  Eogllsh  Colo- 
nies in  Anii-rica,"  175. 

Duniuore's  War,  149. 


268 


INDEX 


Dutch  man-of-war,  1C7. 
Dyke,  John,  IGC. 

East  Greenwich,  27. 

Edmonds,  Sir  Thomas,  treasurer  of 
the  king's  household,  196. 

Edwards,  Richard,  19G. 

Efforts  to  protect  charter  lights  by 
Act  of  Parliament,  35-41,  49-52; 
to  annul  our  cliarter  rights,  52-56 ; 
to  preserve  evidences,  69-73;  to 
obliterate  the  true  history  of  our 
national  origin,  59-69,  73-86,  129, 
130,  238,  239,  250-253. 

Eggleston,  Edward,  and  his  "  Poca- 
hontas," 173. 

Election,  freedom  of,  32,  33,  42, 43, 
45-48. 

Elizabeth,  queen  of  England,  14, 
109, 198,  254. 

Emigrants.    See  Planters. 

England,  1,  6-10,  14-16, 19,  24,  30,  34, 
40-43, 52-54,  etc. ;  common  law  of, 
260 ;  crown  of.    See  Crown. 

English,  the,  10,  ll,  etc. ;  colony,  15, 
21,30,31,54,  etc.;  American  plan- 
tations, 19;  constitution,  10,  23, 
143,  etc. ;  government,  259 ;  history, 
26 ;  rights,  advocates  of.  See  Pa- 
triot Party. 

English  politics  in  early  Virginia 
history,  passim. 

Enterprise  under  the  government 
of  James  I.,  6,  7.  See  Govern- 
ment. 

Episcopalians,  244. 

Essex,  Earl  of.    See  D'Evereux. 

Essington,  William,  222. 

Europe,  215. 

Evidences,  controlled  by  the  crown, 
3-5,  59-86,  108-116,  225,  229,  238, 
242-257 ;  of  the  Virginia  Corpora- 
tion, 61-64,  73,  90,  91,  122,  123,  126- 
128,  133-140,  155,  157,  162,  194-204, 
224.    See  Historic  Wrong. 

Fairfax,  Lord,  163. 
Fanshaw,  Thomas,  195. 
Farrar  (see  Ferrar),  Thomas,  159. 
Ferrar,  Edward,  Sr.,  105;  Edward, 
Jr.,  165 ;  John,  Sr.,  28,  30, 36,  38,  45- 


47,53,54,97,  102,  111,  112,  114,  133, 
134,  165,  194,  222;  his  memoir  of 
his  brother  Nicholas,  114,  165 ; 
John,  Jr.,  165;  Mrs.  Mary,  92; 
Nicholas,  Jr.,  28,  35,  45-47,  50,  51, 
67,  71,  89-92,  97,  109-110,  112,  114, 
1.33,  165,  194;  his  copies  of  the 
Records  of  the  Virginia  Corpora- 
tion  (1609-1624?),  71,  72,  90,  91,  98, 
133 ;  William  of  Virginia,  100. 

Ferrars,  the,  92,  99 ;  their  house,  37 ; 
their  influence,  106. 

First  republic  in  America  (territory 
of),  12,  213,  256. 

"First  Republic  in  America" 
(book),  8,  13,  25,  29,  34,  35,  39,  42, 
67,  76,  84,  85, 114,  127,  133,  170,  179, 
184,  185,  187.  194,  197,  210-212,  215. 

First :  fleet  of  1606,  7,  241 ;  charter 
for  our  original  body  politic,  13- 
16;  inauguration  of  the  reform 
movement,  13-21,  254 ;  fleet  of  the 
corporation  (1609),  16,  19,  241; 
constitution,  16 ;  anniversarj',  16 ; 
steps  in  planting  hberty  in  Amer- 
ica, 17 ;  sermon,  18 ;  governor,  19 ; 
joint  stock,  25;  inauguration  of 
the  reform  government,  26-29,  254; 
effort  to  protect  our  charter  rights 
by  Act  of  Parliament,  35-41 ;  char- 
ters, published  in  1747, 132 ;  House 
of  Burgesses,  146,  255,  account  of, 
published  in  1857,  167 ;  English 
colony  in  America,  193,  221,  227, 
228,  258;  Plymouth  patent,  210; 
Englishmen  to  teach  Indians  the 
use  of  arms,  224,  225 ;  histories, 
250;  political  charter  rights,  254; 
planted  the  seed,  etc.,  256;  mis- 
sion to  England  for  charter  rights, 
52;  etc. 

Fiske,  John,  173. 

Force,  Peter,  his  reprints,  166. 

Fortune,  the,  210. 

Foundation,  our  national  See  under 
English  Politics. 

Founders,  our.  See  the  Patriot 
party. 

France,  125,  149,  150,  158,  204,  244. 

Free  air  of  America,  76,  246,  256. 

"Freedom  of  election,"  32,  33,  42, 


INDEX 


209 


I 


43,  45-48;  American,  254,  "freely 
elected,"'  2:!l,  235. 

Freeman,  Kaphe,  196. 

Free-trader,  21;). 

French  and  Indian  War,  149. 

Fruit  produced  by  the  acts  of  the 
Patriot  party,  250,  251;  by  the 
acts  of  the  Court  party,  252-257. 

Fuller,  Rev.  Thomas,  and  his  "  Wor- 
thies," 117, 174. 

Gainsborough.    See  Noel. 

Galthorpe,  Stephen,  7C. 

Gardiner's  "  History  of  England,"  8, 
109. 

Gates,  Sir  Thomas,  15-21, 77, 79, 114, 
160,  161,  238. 

Gay,  historian,  173. 

General  Assembly  in  Virginia,  29, 34, 
52,  53,  66,  93,  94,  101,  102,  104-108, 
126,  146,  157,  167,  232,  233,  235,  255. 

"Genesis  of  the  United  States" 
(The),  18,  19,  25,  96,  170,  180-184, 
215,  223. 

George  III.,  140-147, 156. 

Georgia,  207. 

Gibbs,  Thomas,  32,  97, 196. 

Goad,  Kev.  Thomas,  83. 

Goethe,  178. 

Gofton,  Sir  F.,  196. 

Gondomar,  Spanish  ambassador,  30, 
31,  35,  37,  42,  43,  40,  55,  219. 

Gorges,  Sir  F.,  196,  210, 

Gosnold,  Capt.  B.,  76. 

Government  of  the  plantation  under 
James  I.  (1607-1610),  6,  7. 10, 17,19, 
20,  23,  48,  55, 75-78,  84, 193,  200,  228- 
230,  232,  236,  237,  241,  248,  255,  25G ; 
proposed  by  the  king  in  1624, 55, 
256. 

Government  of  Ireland,  65,  97 ;  of 
the  kings  of  Spain  in  the  West 
Indies,  55,  97. 

Government,  the  reform,  of  the  col- 
ony under  the  corporation,  the 
popular  course,  5, 17, 21,  25-29,  34, 
35,  40,  41,  43,  48,  55,  221,  229-233, 
236,  237,  248,  254-258;  the  Ameri- 
can idea,  17,  208,  209,  215,  216,  220. 

Government,  the  forms  of,  at  issue, 
228-236. 


Oowrlo  Consplni<»y,  m,  ci,  \vt. 
Craiirlisoii.     Se«  <)hv<T  Kt  John. 
(Jr.'ivt's,  Thomas,  17. 
Groat  llriUiUi,  IJ,  IOC,  122,  14U,  Ui, 

"  tJrcat  Britain's  Solomon,"  2.'i9. 

Great  Charter.    Soo  MaKuaCharta. 

Great  Mogul,  1C9. 

Green  Hag  (magazine),  29. 

Greenwich,  East,  27. 

Grigsby's  Virginia  ConTention   of 

1776,  138. 
Grindon,  Edward,  224. 
Gunpowder  I'lot,  tio,  oi. 

Hackwoll  or   llakewell,   William, 

196,  220. 
Ilakluyt  Society,  England,  1C6. 
Hale,  Kev.  E.  E.,  109. 
Hamilton,  James,  Marquess  of.  37, 

47. 
Hamor,  Ralph,  18 ;  his  "  Discourse," 

10.9. 

Hampshire,  England,  91, 134. 

Hampton  Court  Conference,  8. 

Handford  (or  Haudsford),  Sir  Iluro- 
phrey,  196, 222. 

Harvey,  Sir  John,  52,66,94-97, 100- 
102,104,  115,127. 

Harwood,  Sir  Edward,  45 ;  Thomas, 
100. 

Hawes,  Michael,  196. 

Hay,  James,  Lord  Doncaster,  32.  38. 

Ilayman,  Sir  Pet«r,  3h. 

Heath,  Sir  Kobert,  the  king's  Solic- 
itor-General, 35, 149, 19C. 

Hening,  Wm.  WalltT,  and  his  Vlr- 
ginia  Statutes,  104, 118,  IM,  iw. 

Henry,  Hon.  W.  W.,  172-175,  1K7. 

Herbert,  Edward,  32.  34.  3C.  70; 
George,  the  poet,  92,  109,  112; 
Philip,  Earl  of  Pembroke.  106; 
William,  Earl  of  Pembroke.  16, 32, 
37.  47. 

Hertford.    See  Seymour. 

Hickes.  Sir  Baptist,  i;»«. 

Hickman.  Kichanl.  ux,  15C,  167. 

Hide  or  Hyde,  Lawrence.  32;  Ed- 
ward. Earl  of  Clarendon.  137. 

High  Commission,  05,  fe3-»5,  109, 110, 
197, 199,  202,  257. 


270 


INDEX 


Historians  licensed  by  the  crown. 
See  Kev.  S.  Purchas  and  Captain 
J.  Smith. 

Historic  wrong  done  our  patriotic 
founders  by  James  I.,  his  com- 
missioned officers,  and  licensed 
historians:  By  the  suppression 
of  evidences  favorable  to  the  pop- 
ular movement  of  1609-1624,  and 
unfavorable  to  the  king's  admin- 
istration of  1606-1609,  and  the  pre- 
servation and  dissemination  of 
evidences  favorable  to  the  admin- 
istration of  James  I.  (1606-1609) 
and  unfavorable  to  the  reform 
movement  of  the  Patriots,  5,  59- 
69,  73-86,  90,  91,  95-97,  108,  109, 
113,  115-117,  119,  121-132,  141,  142, 
153,  194-205,  217 ;  how  the  wrong 
was  perpetuated  under  the  crown, 
89-150,  and  under  the  Eepub- 
lic,  153,  154,  164,  1C5,  170-178,  185- 
189,  212,  213.  The  efforts  to  cor- 
rect the  wrong  under  the  crown, 
09-73,  90,  91,  95, 98, 108, 111-115, 126- 
128, 132-140,  142,  154,  156,  157 ;  and 
under  the  Kepublic,  153-158,  165- 
169,  178-190,  212-215,  257-262.  A 
summary  of  the  political  fea- 
tures of  the  historic  wrong,  190- 
256. 

"  Historical  Magazine,"  The,  171. 

History,  control  over  by  the  crown, 
108-116;  importance  of  the  polite 
ical  point  of  view  in,  249-262; 
licensed  by  the  crown,  73-86,  95, 
228, 237, 250.  See  Smith's  "  Generall 
Historic." 

"  History  of  our  Earliest  History," 

187. 
Hobart,  Sir  Henry,  11, 22. 
Holborn,  65, 134, 
Holland,  215. 

Holies,  John,  Lord  Houghton,  43. 
Hopkins,  Stephen,  18. 
Hopton,  Ralph,  117. 
Horsmanden,  Mary,  137 ;  Warham, 

138. 
Horwood.    See  Harwood. 
Hothersall,  Thomas,  161. 
HougbtoD,  Lord.    See  Holies. 


House  of  Burgesses  in  Virginia,  29, 
93,  94, 100, 108, 117-119, 121, 138, 140, 
146, 167,  231,  235,  236.  See  General 
Assembly. 

House  of  Commons.  See  Commons. 

House  of  Lords.    See  Lords. 

Howard,  Francis,  Lord,  121. 

Howes,  Edmond,  bis  publications, 
82. 

Huguenots,  244. 

Huntingdonshire,  92. 

Illinois,  207. 

Inaugurating  the  reform  movement, 
13-21  ;  the  reform  government,  26- 
29. 

Incorporations.    See  Corporations. 

Independent.    See  Patriot  party. 

Indian  Territory,  207. 

Indiana,  207. 

Indians,  12,  25,  27,  43,  80  120,149, 
218,  224,  225,  240. 

Infanta  of  Spain,  37. 

Influence  of  contemporary  politics 
on  history  as  enacted,  1-56;  as 
published,  59-86;  of  subsequent 
politics  in  upholding  the  historic 
wrong,  under  the  crown,  89-147, 
and  under  the  Eepublic,  153-180. 

"  Interpreter  "  (The),  259,  260. 

Introductory,  3-5. 

Ireland,  45,  50,  53,  55,  97,  195,  244. 

James  L,  l,  5-13,  15,  17,  22-24,  26,  28, 
29,  31-33,  35-40,  42^6,  48-51,  53, 55- 
57,  59,  60,  65-68, 72-80,  83-86,  89,  90, 
92-94,  97,  99,  104,  109,  113,  116,  117, 
119,  120,  122,  123,  126-129,  131,  132, 
130,  145-149,  153,  155,  160-163,  165- 
168,  170,  176,  177,  182,  183,  185, 187- 
189,  193-195,  197-200,  202-204,  206, 
210,  212-214,  216,  217,  219,  221,  223, 
229-233,  236,  237,  241,  245,  248,  249, 
252-254,  256-262 ;  his  "  Basilikon 
Doron,"  9 ;  "  True  Law  of  Free 
Monarchies,"  9;  "  Premonition  to 
all  most  mighty  Monarchs,"  9; 
"  Remonstrance  for  the  Rights  of 
Kings,"  26;  his  form  of  govern- 
ment for  the  Colonies  and  Com- 
panics.    See  under  Government ; 


INDEX 


'J71 


King's    Commissions,    Councils, 

etc. 
James  II.,  122. 
James  Kiver,  21,  159. 
Jamestown,  16-21, 29, 52, 94,  160, 208, 

254. 
Jefferson,  John,  52;  Thomas,  no, 

137,  139-141,  144,   146,   150,  227  ;  a 

laborer  in   the  field  of   original 

research,  153-158 ;  his  library,  140 ; 

his  "  Notes  on  Virginia,"  158-164. 
Jermyn,  Thilip,  34, 19G. 
Johnson,  Edward,  196;  Robert,  13, 

30,  32.  44,  114,  127,  196. 
Joint,  or  common  stock,  25-27,  218, 

219,  222. 
Jones,  Sir  "William,  45,  67, 195. 

Kansas,  207. 

Keightley,  Thomas,  32,  222. 

Keith,  Sir  "William,  his  Ilistory  of 

Virginia,  123, 160, 202. 
Kendall,  George,  76. 
Kent,  38,  39, 50. 
Kentucky,  207. 
Killigrew,  Sir  Robert,  70,  91,  97,  98, 

133, 196. 
King,  of  the  Pamaunkees,  254;  of 

Paspahegh,  254;  of  the  Powliat 

ans,  254 ;  of  England.  See  James  I. 
King's  Bench,  Court  of,  53,  83,  98, 

124,  195,  212. 
King's  Commissioners  in  England, 

45-49,  53,  67,  82,  195;  in  Virginia, 

52,  65-67,  94,  104,  115,  116,  127,  195. 
King's  Council    in  Virginia   (1607- 

1610),  7,  17,  75-78, 193,  206,  229,  230, 

237,  241,  255. 
Kirkham,  Robert,  32. 

Lands  granted,  12, 13,  22. 
Lane,  Ralph,  245. 

Laud,  "William,  Archbishop  of  Can- 
terbury, 99,  109 ;  his  chaplain,  109. 
Law  (Common),  of  England,  260. 
Leate,  or  Leake,  Nicholas,  196. 
Lee  [R.  H.],  144. 
Lefroy,  General  Sir  J.  H.,  173. 
Leiger  Court  Books,  71. 
Lewis,  Andrew,  149. 
Ley,  Sir  James,  53,  67, 195. 


Lilieral  Ideas  of  povornmont.    S<'« 

liffonn  (ii)V(TiinnMit. 
Liberal    |».litiial    rliarter    rlKhls. 

See  Charter  rlKhts. 
Liberal  piirty.    Set«  Patriot  party. 
"  Liberties,"  39  ;  Liberty,  l.t,  17,  115, 

146,  147,216,  •J.jn,  •J48;  "  LlbiTty  of 

tlie  Sul)jt'ct,"  2'20. 

Library  of  Congress.  140,  i,'.7.  IM. 

Lilburne,  John,  no ;  Robert.  110; 
William,  no. 

Little  Gidding,  92,  90. 133. 

Lisle.  Lord.    See  Sidney. 

Lodge,  Hon.  H.  C,  173. 

London  (the  capital),  27-29,  92,  96, 
110,  122,  127,  l.i4,  147.  1B2,  106-1«», 
173,  233,  254.  See  Virginia  Cor- 
poration,  commonly  called  The 
Virginia  Company  of  London, 
the  Virginia  Courts  in  Loudon, 
etc. 

Lords,  House  of.  38,  40,  no.  14C. 
See  Parliament 

Lotteries,  223. 

Ludwell,  Thomas,  119. 

Lymington,  50. 

"Magazine  of  American  History" 
(N.  Y.).  133. 

Magna  Charta,  29. 102. 

l^Iallory,  Sir  James.  38. 

Managers  of  the  business.  13.  20,  40, 
62,  84,  89,  90,  217,  23C-244,  240,  24'>- 
251,  2.')5,  256 ;  their  Discourse,  h»- 
91.  See  Virginia  Corporation  and 
Virginia  Courts. 

Managers  of  the  governineut  for 
the  crown.  217,237. 

Manchester.    See  Montaga 

IMansneld,  Sir  Robert,  15. 

T.Iarbois.  Mons.  TV,  ir>«. 

Marlier,  or  JIartlan.  N'icholas,  100. 

Martin.  Capt.  John.  17.  2C.  49.  77. 

Maryland.  98,  99,  124,  141,  149.  1C3. 
207,  218. 

Massachusetts,  ICC,  170.  174.  211- 
213;  charter,  45.  90.  207.  211  -'n. 
233;  corporation.  212-214 ;  Histori- 
cal Society.  165.  See  Vlrginl* 
(North). 

l^Iassacre  by  the  Indians,  43. 


272 


INDEX 


Matthews,  Samuel,  52, 100,  lOl,  108, 

114. 

Maurice  of  Nassau,  19,  20. 

May,  Sir  H.,  196. 

Mayflower,  the,  205 ;  compact,  209. 

McLeod,  Captain,  158. 

Meeting  places  of  the  Virginia 
courts,  254.  See  House  of  the 
Ferrars,  Sir  E.  Sandys,  Sir  Thos. 
Smith,  and  the  Earl  of  Southamp- 
ton.   See  London. 

Menefie,  George,  100. 

Mexico,  150. 

Middlesex.    See  Cranfield. 

Mildmay,  Sir  Henry,  44, 196 ;  John, 
196. 

Milton,  John,  111,  117;  his  "  Areo- 
pagitica,"  ill. 

Mississippi  Biver,  149,  150  ;  State, 
207. 

Missouri,  207. 

Mogul,  the  Great,  169. 

Mole,  George,  190. 

"  Monarchie,"  47,  49 ;  Old  World, 
208. 

"  Monarchies,  True  Law  of  Free," 
9. 

"Monarchs,  Premonition  to  all 
most  mighty,"  9. 

Monarchy,  absolute,  259.  See  under 
Government. 

MonopoUes,  219,  220;  monopolist, 
219. 

Montagu,  Sir  Charles,  196;  Ed- 
ward, Earl  of  Manchester,  105; 
Henry  Viscount  Mandeville,  etc., 
196;  James,  bishop,  259. 

Monticello,  139, 158, 100, 161. 

Moore,  Sir  George,  39. 

Morer,  Kichard,  197. 

Morryson,  Francis,  119. 

Movement,  the  motive  of  the  re- 
form, 245-249;  the  correct  politi- 
cal and  historical  point  of  view 
of,  180-189,  249-262.  See  Reform 
movement 

Mulberryes,  218. 

Mulberry  Island,  20. 

Neill,  Rev.  E.  D.,  his  "Virginia 
Company,"  172. 


Netherlands,  15, 19,  72,  91,  125,  16S, 

204. 
Nevada,  207. 
New  England,  82,  95,  101,  183,  210, 

212,  213.    See  Charter,  1620;  Vir- 

ginia  (North). 
New  Jersey,  207. 
"  New  Life  of  Virginia,"  25, 165. 
New  Mexico,  207. 
New  World.  5,  17,  24,  53,  208,  216, 

248. 
New  York,  169 ;    documents,  167 ; 

Historical  Society,  167 ;  magazine, 

171. 
Newport,  Captain  C,  18,  21,  76;  his 

".Discoveries,"  169. 
Neyle,    Richard,    Archbishop    of 

York,  99. 
Noel,   Edward,  Earl  of  Gainsbor- 
ough, 135;  Lady  Elizabeth,  134; 

Wriothesley,  Earl  of  Gainsbor- 

ough,  135. 
Nonconformists,  244. 
"  North  American  Review,"  171. 
North  Carolina,  149,  207. 
Northern  Neck  of  Va.,  117, 119, 163. 
North  Virginia.     See  Virginia  (40° 

to  45'=  n.  1.),  North. 
Northumberland  [Hugh  Smitbson 

Percy],  Duke  of,  147. 
"  Notes  and  Queries,"  London,  96. 
Notes  on  the  way,  16G0  to  1746, 116- 

124. 
Nottingham,  105. 
"  Nova  Britannia,"  14, 166. 

Obtaining  the  first  charter  for  the 
original  body  politic,  0-13;  the 
second  charter,  21-26. 

Ogle,  Sir  John,  44,  45. 

Ohio,  207. 

Oklahoma,  207. 

Old  World,  215,  216,  244,  255 ;  mon- 
archies,  208. 

Orange,  Prince  of,  167. 

Origin  of  this  natioa  See  Princi- 
ples of  liberty ;  Vis  vitae,  etc. 

Original  of  the  body  politic  of  this 
nation.  See  Virginia  Corpora- 
tion and  Body  Politic. 

Oxford  Tract,  79-82,  84, 85. 


INDEX 


1273 


Pacific  Ocean,  23.    Seo  South  Soa. 

rackard,  Kcv.  Peter,  bis  Life  of  K. 
Ferrar,  li>5,  194. 

Paget,  William,  Lord,  43,  lOG. 

Palfrey,  historian,  ITr). 

Pallavaclno,  Edward,  I'JC. 

Palmer,  William,  196. 

Pamaunkces,  King  of,  254. 

Paris,  France,  158. 

Parks,  AVilliam,  124. 

Parliament,  141, 144,  259,  2G0 ;  First, 
James  L,  8,  9,  35,  220;  Second, 
James  I.,  35 ;  Third,  James  L,  35- 
41;  Fourth,  James  I.,  49-52,  89, 
134 ;  First,  Charles  I.,  93,  94 ;  Sec- 
ond, Charles  I.,  93;  Third,  Charles 
I.,  94, 109  ;  Fourth,  Charles  L,  103 ; 
Fifth,  Charles  I.,  or  Long,  103-105, 
107,  108,  110,  118,  137,  202;  of 
Charles  II.,  117,  118.  See  Com- 
mons and  Lords. 

Parliament  in  Virginia,  9,  7C. 

Parliamentary  business,  38,  39. 

Parties  in  the  Virginia  Corpora- 
tion, 34,  44,  45,  51,  73.  See  Sir 
Edwin  Sandys  and  Sir  Thomas 
Smith. 

Parties,  National  political:  Court 
party  which  controlled  the  evi- 
dences and  laid  the  foundation 
upon  which  the  history  has  been 
written,  1,  5,  9, 10,  22,  24,  2G,  .30,  34, 
37,  39,  43-4G,  53,  57,  GO,  66,  07,  69, 
73-75,  78-82,  84-87,  95-97,  100,  101, 
104-106,  108,  110,  113,  115,  117,  122, 
128-132,  136,  145-147,  153,  154,  163, 
165,  174,  177,  178,  181-184,  188,  189, 
191,  193-195,  197,  200,  201,  204,  210, 
212,  217,  219,  221,  227,  228,  234, 
237,  238,  240,  242,  243,  245,  247-261 ; 
Patriot  party,  which  managed  the 
business  and  laid  the  foundation 
upon  which  this  great  nation  has 
been  erected,  l,  5,  8, 10,  24,  25,  30, 
33-35,  37^0,  42-16,  48-53,  60,  69,  72, 
75,  76,  79,  81,  84-87,  90-98,  103,  108, 
110,  111,  113-115,  120,  122,  128-132, 
136,  139,  145,  146,  153,  165,  174,  182, 
184,  188-191,  194,  195,  197,  200-204, 
210,  211,  226,  227,  234,  236,  242-245, 
248-251,    253,    255,     258-2G2 ;    evi- 


dences for,  contlscatod,  r,9-co ;  |in«- 
servetl,  G9-73. 

Parties  in  Virj;lnla,  .'.2,  100,  102.  lai, 
120,  141,  14;(,  114,  140,  163.  Imp.  lui. 
243,  244. 

Paspahcgh.  King  of.  2.^4. 

Past  politics.  Inducnco  of,  if.i  ico. 
Sec  under  Political  and  Politics. 

Patience,  the,  l«. 

Patriot  party.  See  under  Parties, 
National. 

Pcirce.     See  Pierce. 

Pembroke,  Earl  of.    See  Herbert 

Pennant's  account  of  London,  135. 

Pennsylvania,  149, 207. 

Percy,  George,  17,  78,  241. 

Perry,  William,  100. 

Petitions  for  charter  rights,  3C,  51 ; 
(1G24),  52,  92  ;  (162.-;),  92,  93  ;  (1C2C). 
93;  (1630-1632),  97,  98,  14S,  149; 
(1633),  98,  99  ;  (1640),  103,  lO^J,  107. 
108;  (1G74),  119-121;  (17C4),  140; 
(1624-1774),  2,34  ;  against,  104,  105. 

"  Petition  of  KIghts,"  IM. 

Philadelphia,  143, 156, 157 

Pierce,  William,  18, 100. 

Pierce's  patent,  209. 

Piersey,  Abrabain,  r.2. 

Pilgrims,  15,  18,  209-212.  Sec  Vir- 
ginia (North). 

Planters,  7,  9,  12,  13,  17,  20,  etc.,  M, 
225-227,240,  241,244,  246,247.2:^. 
See  under  Virginia  Corporation 
and  I'.ody  Politic. 

Plymouth,  England.  15,  in.  loi. 

Plymouth  Patent,  N.  E.,  210. 

Pocahontas  incident,  170-177,  249, 
254. 

Point  Comfort,  19. 

Political  charter  riuhts.  See  Cliar- 
tcr  rights;  features  of  the  his- 
toric case,  191-262;  importance  of 
the  reform  movement,  5  7,  10  13, 
17,  22,  etc.;  objects.  25.  27,  ">,  31, 
35,  47,  etc. ;  point  of  view,  240,  249- 
262 ;  policies.  8-15,  33.  ctc. ;  char- 
acter of  the  historic  wrong.  S»'o 
Historic  Wrong;  Inrtuences,  »eo 
Influence. 

Politics  In  early  Virginia  history  ns 
represented  in  the  acta  and  cvl- 


274 


INDEX 


dences  of  the  Court  and  Patriot 
parties.  See  Charters ;  Charter 
Eights ;  Evidences ;  Historic 
"Wrong;  Parties,  National;  Past 
Pohtics ;  Present  Politics,  etc. 

Poole  (see  Powell),  Robert,  224. 

Poplar  Forest,  158-160. 

Popular  charters.  See  Charters  of 
1G09,  1612. 

Popular  course  of  government.  See 
under  Government. 

Popular  parties.    See  Patriot  party. 

Portland  [Cavendish  -  Bentinck] , 
Duke  of,  147. 

Pory,  John,  52,  66, 167, 196. 

Pott,  Dr.  John,  100. 

"  Potter's  American  Monthly,"  172. 

Pountis,  John,  52,  92, 127. 

Powell,  Nathaniel,  17. 

Powhatans,  King  of,  241, 249,  254. 

"Premonition  to  all  most  mighty 
Monarchs,"  9. 

Prerogatives  of  the  king,  259. 

Presbyterians,  244. 

Present  politics,  influence  of,  170- 
178,  212-215.  See  under  Political, 
and  Politics. 

Presidents  and  Council  in  Virginia, 
230.  See  King's  Council  in  Vir- 
ginia. 

Press,  the,  controlled  by  the  crown, 
3-5,  59-61,  70,  73,  81-86,  95,  109-111, 
115,  116, 121,  122,  125,  142,  153 ;  un- 
der the  Commonwealth,  111-114; 
in  Virginia,  115, 116,  121,  122,  124, 
125,  141,  142, 153. 

Principles  of  liberty  (immortal),  10- 
13,  17,19,23,24,  31,  53,  50,  etc.,  201, 
228,  229,  233-237,  242-244,  257,  261. 
262.  See  Government  (the  re- 
form) ;  Vis  vitae,  etc. 

Printers.    See  Press. 

Privy  Chamber,  102. 

Privy  Council  of  theKing,  36, 41,44, 
45,  47,  50-52,  60, 61,  63,  65,  83,  90,  93, 
100,  112,  142, 168,  182,  195. 

Proclamation  of  May,  1625,  91,  92. 

Protectionist,  219. 

Protestation  of  the  Commons,  39. 

Providence,  20,  56,  72,  108,  167,  202, 
234,  246-249. 


Public  record  office,  107, 168. 

Purchas,  Rev.  Samuel,  and  his  pub- 
lications, 81,  82,  85,  95,  125,  197, 
198,  205,  252,  259. 

Puritans,  15.    See  Massachusetts. 

Pym,  John,  105. 

Pythagoras,  260. 

Quo  Warranto,  53-55,  67,  98,  99, 120, 

226. 

RadclifTe,  John,  77, 241, 242. 

Raleigh,  Sir  W.,  245. 

Randolph,  Sir  John,  136, 138, 156, 157, 
229;  John  of  Roanoke,  157;  Pey- 
ton, 156 ;  library,  157. 

Randolph's  copies  of  the  Virginia 
Court  Records,  157. 

Rayner,  Marmaduke,  167. 

Records,  71,  72,  90,  91,  98,  108-116, 
133-140, 238. 

Reform  charters,  204-216.  See  un- 
der Charters. 

Reform  government.  See  under 
Government. 

Reform  movement,  5-7, 10-22,  30-35, 
73,  193-204,  226,237  ;  motive  Of  the, 
245-249. 

Remonstrance  of  the  most  gracious 
King  James  I.,  26 ;  of  the  Com- 
mons, 9;  of  his  Majesty's  well 
wishing,  42. 

Republic,  the,  154, 156, 164,  165, 178, 
180,  184, 185,  187,  197,  202,  228,  242, 
253,  255,  256. 

Revolution,  13, 142-147, 149, 153, 166, 
165,  202,  227,  236. 

Revolutionary  disputes,  141,  143; 
history,  159 ;  leaders,  141, 143, 146. 

Rich,  Sir  Nathaniel,  44^  46,  47,  196; 
Robert,  Earl  of  Warwick,  44,  47, 
his  house,  47. 

Richard,  the,  8. 

Richmond,  Va.,  157,  166;  "Dis- 
patch,"  175. 

Rider,  Edward,  145. 

Rights,  boundary,  charter,  histori- 
cal, political,  of  the  Patriots  who 
founded  this  country, passim. 

Rind,  William,  141. 

Robertson,  W.,  171. 


INDEX 


275 


Rockfish  River,  159. 

Eoe,  Sir  Thomas,  32,  34 ;  Letters  to, 
169. 

Rogers,  Jane,  110. 

Rolfe,  Mrs.  John,  18 ;  John,  18, 174 ; 
his  "  Relation,"  IGG. 

Roundhead,  107,  244. 

Royal  Commissions,  82.  See  King's 
Commissions. 

Royal  MSS.,  166. 

Royalist  party.    See  Court  party. 

Russell,  Lady  Rachel,  Lord  Wil- 
liam, 135. 

"  Rymer's  Fcedera,"  123. 

Sackville,  Sir  Edward,  44,  97, 98. 

Saint  Andrew's  Church,  65. 

St.  John,  Oliver,  Viscount  Grandi- 
son,55. 

Sandwich,  36. 

Sandys,  Sir  Edwin,  8,  9, 11,  22,  27, 
28,30-34,36-40,44-47,49-51,60,  79, 
82,  89,  92, 102,  113,  114,  120,  128, 129, 
133, 145,  183,  200,  209,  211,  219,  222, 
238, 253 ;  his  house,  28 ;  his  party, 
82,  222  ;  George,  97,  102,  103,  105, 
133  ;  Sir  Samuel,  36. 
L  Sandys-Ferrar  influence,  106. 
I  Sandys  -  Southampton  administra- 
tion (1619-1624),  62. 

Scotch  army,  107, 134. 

Scotland.  244. 
I        Scott,  Anthony,  21 ;  General  W.,  150. 
,  Scottsville,  Va.,  159. 

"Seating  Place,"  6. 

Second  effort  to  protect  our  charter 
rights  by  Act  of  Parliament,  49-52. 

Seelye,  Lillie  Eggleston,  173. 

Segar,  Sir  William,  the  King's  king 
of  amis,  95, 96. 

Selden,  John,  28,  34,  36,  38,  94, 109, 
138. 

"  Seminary  of  Sedition,"  40,  72, 127, 

231,  254. 

"Seminary  for  a  seditious  Parlia- 
ment," 31, 143.  See  Virginia  courts 
in  London. 

Sermons,  18,  21. 

Seymour,  Edward,  Earl  of  Hertr 
ford,  80,  83,  225. 

Shad  well  Street,  London,  lie. 


Shakespeare,    William,    and     his 

"Tempest,"  ic. 
Sheflleld,  Kdmond,  Lord,  32. 
Sidney,  Sir  PhiUp,  15;  Robert,  Lord 

Lisle,  15. 
Sigismund  fiathor,  96. 
Smith,  Catherine,  138 ;  John  of  Nib- 
ley,  45,  2.58 ;  Robert  of  London,  35  ; 
Robert  of  Virginia,  iiO;  sir 
Thomas,  Treasurer  of  the  Virginia 
Corporation  (1G09-1619),  14,  15,  27, 
30,  32,  41,  44,  47,  51,  81,  82,  90,  114, 
128-130,138,  196,  219,224,2.37,  2.38; 
his  house  in  London,  81 ;  his  party, 
82,  90,  128,  183,  222. 

Smith,  John,  a  historian  licensed 
under  the  crown,  and  a  represent- 
ative of  James  L  in  Virginia,  5, 
49,  63,  55,  65,  74-86,  95, 117,  125,  129, 
164,  165,  170-178,  181,  187,  197,  223- 
225,  228,  229,  237-239,  241,  249,  252, 
254 ;  his  "  Generall  Historic,"  6, 53, 
65,  74-76,83-86,  95, 122-125, 129-132, 
160,  164,  171-179,  181,  187,  199-203, 
205,  217,  225,  237.  245,  250-257  ;  his 
Oxford  Tract,  79-82,  84,  85;  his 
"  True  Relation,"  171 ;  his  pub- 
lished works,  82,  95,  164,  176,  179, 
225 ;  his  biographies,  164. 

"  Snowden,"  159. 

Somers  Islands  Company,  65.  See 
Bermuda. 

Somers,  Sir  George,  16, 18. 

Southampton.    See  Wriothesley. 

Southampton  House,  32, 134, 135. 

South  Carolina,  149, 207. 

Southern  Literary  Messenger,  166. 

South  Sea,  7, 246.  See  Pacific  Ocean. 

South  Virginia.  See  Virginia  (.36° 
to  40^  n.  1.) 

"SovcraiAiie  Rule,"  241. 

Sl)ain,  8,  12,  13,  .30,  .37,  42,  43,  49,  50, 
97.  125,  145,  1.-.0,  204.  2.39,  247,  255. 

Spaniards,  8,  25,  27,  80,  240,  246. 

Spanish  king,  30,  97, 145 ;  match,  37. 
49 ;  ministers,  30 ;  party,  8,  37 ; 
plan  of  government  for  Colonies, 
55,  97,  145 ;  wrougs,  8 ;  West  In- 
dies, 10,  30,  37. 

Stagg  or  Stegge,  Thomas,  107, 137. 

Stamford,  134. 


276 


INDEX 


Star  Chamber,  64, 65, 84, 101, 109, 110, 

197,  202,  260. 
State  Papers,  Calendars  of,  168. 
Stationer's  Hall,  83. 
Stevens,  Henry,  173. 
Stiles,  Thomas,  196. 
Stith,  Kev.  William,  72,  125-133, 135, 

156, 157,160,  229, 230 ;  his  "  History 

of  Virginia,"  15,  124-132,  135-137, 

142,  160,  229,  230,  239. 
Stock.    See  Joint  stock. 
Stow,  John,  82. 
Strachey,  William,  17,  18,  21;   his 

"Historic  of  Travaile,"  etc.,  166. 
Strafford.    See  Wentworth. 
Strype,  221. 
Stuart,  Ludovic,    83;    Duchess   of 

Eichmond  and  Lenox,  83,  254. 
Stuart   kings.    See  James  I.  and 

II.;  Charles  I.  and  II. 
Styles.    See  Stiles. 
Suckling,  Sir  John,  Comptroller  of 

the  king's  household,  196. 
Suffrage  in  Virginia,  234-236.    See 

Election. 
Sustaining  influence.  See  Vis  vitas. 
Sutcliff,  Kev.  Dr.  M.,  196. 

Tarleton's  command,  158, 159. 
Taylor,  Col.  H.  P.,  139 ;  Gen.  Z.,  150. 
Taxes,  28,  47,  108,  120,  140,  232,  233, 

235. 
Tempest,  the,  16,  241. 
Tennessee,  207. 
Texas,  150,  207. 
Text,  18. 

Titchfield,  library,  91, 133-135. 
"  Tobacco  plantation,"  31. 
Tomlyns,  Kichard,  70, 
Tories,  227,  243.    See  Court  party. 
"  True  Law  of  Free  Monarchies,"  9. 
Trust  Companies,  219,  220. 
Tucker,  Daniel,  17. 
Tufton,  Sir  Nicholas,  32. 
Tyler,  President  John,  150;  Prof. 

Jloses  Coit,  and  his  "  History  of 

American   Literature,"  172,   173, 

175. 

United    Provinces.     See    Nether- 
lands. 


United  States,  150, 166, 1S8,  193,  215, 

256,  258. 
University  College,  London,  173. 
Utah,  207. 
Utie,  John,  100, 101. 

Velasco,  Don  Alonso  de,  30. 

Villiers,  George,  Duke  of  Bucking- 
ham, 50. 

Virginia  (34°  to  45°  n.  1.),  6. 

Virginia,  North  (40°  to  45°  or  48°  n. 
1.),  8,  9,  11,  150,  206,  207,  209-212, 

214,  215,  222,  247,  248.  See  Massa- 
chusetts ;  New  England ;  Pil- 
grims. 

Virginia,  South  (34°  to  40°  n.  1.),  7- 
12,  15-17,  19,  21,  26-29,  37,  40,  41. 
43,  47^9,  51,  54,  62,  64,  66,  69,  70, 
76,  78,  79,  89,  91,  92,  99,  101,  108, 
140,  150,  183,  206,  207,  210-212,  214, 

215,  220,  222,  229,  235,  247,  248,  254, 
255. 

Virginia  Company  (1606-1609),  6,  22, 
73,  76-78,  205,  206,  208,  209,  216-218, 
227,  236,  237. 

Virginia  Corporation  and  body  poli- 
tic (1609-1624),  10-13,  16-19,  22,  24, 
30-34,  37-39,  44,  45,  48-54,  56,  61,  64, 

65,  67,  72,  82,  84,  91,  92,  95,  97,  106, 
112,  118,  123-132,  134,  136,  145-147, 
155,  157,  161-163,  174,  175,  182,  193- 
195,  197,  202,  206,  207,  210,  212,  213, 
216-228,  230,  231,  233,  234,  237,  238, 
241,  247,  260.  See  under  Evi- 
dences. 

Virginia  courts  in  London,  27,  29- 
36,  40-43,  46,  48,  50,  53,  62,  64,  65, 

66,  70,  71,  97,  127,  133-140,  142,  143, 
102,  209,  217,  219,  222,  224,  231-233, 
238,  254.  See  "  Seminary  of  Sedi- 
dion." 

Virginia  business,  31,  36-38,  40, 
89. 

"  Virginia  and  Maryland,"  111. 

"Virginia  Company  papers,  1621- 
1625,"  157. 

"  Virginia  Papers,  1606-1683,"  158. 

Virginia,  the  State  of,  207 ;  conven- 
tion of  1776, 138 ;  Constitution  of 
1776,  149;  "Magazine  of  History 
and  Biography,"  26,  29,  187 ;  His- 


INDEX 


277 


torical  Society,  157, 171, 173 ;  "  Ee- 
porter,"  171. 

Virgiuians,  43,70, 93, 98.  See  Planters. 

Vis  vitse  (principles  of  liberty,  lib- 
eral ideas  of  government,  etc.), 
10-13,  17,  19,  23,  24,  31,  53,  5G,  1C9, 
228,  229,  233-237,  242-250,  257,  258, 
261,  262. 

"  Vox  populi  vox  Dei,"  262. 

Warner,  Charles  Dudley,  his  "  Study 
of  Smith's  Life,"  etc.,  173. 

Warwick,  Earl  of.    See  Eich. 

Washington,  George,  100, 149. 

Wenman,  Sir  R,  20. 

Wentworth,  Thomas,  Earl  of  Straf- 
ford, 104. 

West,  Francis,  77,  94,  114;  John, 
100, 101, 114;  Thomas,  Lord  De  la 
Warr,  15,  19-21,  29,  78,  79,  114,  238, 
his  letter,  166,  his  "  Eelation,"  168. 

West  Indies,  10,  97.  See  Spanish 
West  Indies. 

Westminster  Abbey,  259. 

Weston,  Sir  E.,  Chancellor  of  the 
King's  Exchequer,  196. 

West  Virginia,  207. 

Wliite,  Eev.  Francis,  196 ;  John,  28, 
45,  70,  211. 

William  the  Silent,  19,  20. 

William  and  Mary,  122. 

Williamsburg,  Va.,  124. 


Williams,  Lordkeeper  John,  259. 

Wilniore,  George,  196. 

Winglield,  Capt.  E.  M.,  76 ;  his  "  Dis- 
course of  Virginia,"  106, 109, 170. 

Winston,  Dr.  Thomas,  222. 

Wiseman,  lUchard,  222. 

Withers,  Anthony,  70. 

Wodenoth,  Arthur,  and  his  "  Short 
Collections,"  33,  38,44,  54,  92, 111- 
114,  136,165;  Will,  112. 

Wolsteuholme,  Sir  John,  196. 

Wriothesley,  Henry,  3d  Earl  of 
Southampton,  and  last  Treasurer 
of  the  Virginia  Corporation,  15, 16, 
28,32,33,36-38,42,44-47,  62,71,  90, 
91,  114,  129,  133,  136,  147;  Thomas, 
4th  Earl  of  Southampton,  102, 133, 
134,  130,  139.  See  Southampton 
House,  and  Titchfleld. 

Wrong.    See  Historic  wrong. 

Wrote,  Samuel,  35, 196. 

Wroth,  John,  35,  222 ;  Sir  Thomas, 
196. 

Wyatt,  Sir  Francis,  35,  41,  92,  93,  97, 
102,  104,  127,  161. 

Wythe,  George,  144. 

Yeardley,  Sir  George,  18, 20,  29,  92, 
93, 114, 126, 127, 162,  225. 

Zane,  Isaac,  139, 140. 
Zuniga,  Don  Pedro  de,  30. 


Elecirotyped  and  printed  by  H.  O.  Houghton  b*  Co. 
Cambridge,  Mass.,  U.  S.  A. 


MiEs^ 


0/: 

c 


^1 

5 

yojiiv3jo>- 

^^Of  CAllFOftj^ 


?  —  3    1 


■•16 


u 


•  ,j  u  :  I  r.   ;  r 


AA    000  697  233    b 


■0/-. 


